1995 PLP 170 (PLC)
Syed SHAH AHMED IMAM Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 170 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed SHAH AHMED IMAM Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 170 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 170 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 170 (PLC) (Syed SHAH AHMED IMAM Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Alam for Appellant.
- Abdus Samad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O.15(3)(e)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee who remained absent from duty for more than ten days, was issued registered notice at his residential address‑‑‑Employee was subjected to a regular enquiry after issuance of charge‑sheet, but he remained absent and notices issued to him in that respect were returned by Postal Authorities as "refused"‑‑. Employee was given full opportunity to contest enquiry proceedings, but he himself avoided to appear and enquiry was held ex parte against him‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances was rightly dismissed on ground of misconduct as he could not produce any thing in his defence.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Alam for Appellant. Abdus Samad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1994. This appeal arises from the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi dismissing the application of the appellant under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 in respect of his dismissal from service as a worker of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. 2. The appellant was a permanent workman of the respondent. He joined the respondent‑Corporation as a trainee on 21‑12‑1980 and was regularly employed from 21‑3‑1982 as Impregnator and then as Plant Equipment Operator. The appellant remained absent from duty for more than ten days. After which notice was sent to him by registered post at his residential address. He was subjected to a regular enquiry after issue of charge‑sheet. The appellant remained absent and the notices were returned by the Postal Authorities as "refused". After completion of the enquiry for misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e) he was dismissed from service. 3. The learned Labour Court held that the appellant was, given full opportunity to contest the enquiry proceedings but he himself avoided to appear and the enquiry was held ex parte. 4. It is a case of the appellant that he regularly attended the respondent‑Corporation but he was not allowed to sign the muster roll by the management. Thereafter he was dismissed after ten days. No evidence has been produced in support of his contention. The appellant has admitted that the envelopes containing the reply to grievance notice, termination order and enquiry report etc. was sent at his house address and afterwards he had asked for these documents to be supplied to him but this was not done. It has come in evidence that the envelopes were taken to his residence from time to time but he avoided to receive them and they contained all these documents when they were opened in the Court. 5. I, therefore, cannot find any substance in this appeal. The order of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2393/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.