1989 (PLP)
AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL
| Citation | 1989 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 (PLP) (AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajjad Ahmad Lone for Appellant.
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 1(4) & S.O. 15(3) (e)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct.‑‑Efficiency and Discipline Rules of establishment not statutory rules‑‑Provisions of Ordinance applicable‑ Absence of 6 days does not amount to misconduct‑‑Dismissal order for such absence set aside by Labour Court awarding reinstatement with back benefits‑ Order of Labour Court, held, unexceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 1(4) & S.O. 15(3) (e)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct.‑‑Efficiency and Discipline Rules of establishment not statutory rules‑‑Provisions of Ordinance applicable‑ Absence of 6 days does not amount to misconduct‑‑Dismissal order for such absence set aside by Labour Court awarding reinstatement with back benefits‑ Order of Labour Court, held, unexceptionable. Sajjad Ahmad Lone for Appellant. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1984. The above‑captioned appeal challenges the decision dated 31‑5‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent was of absence from 5‑7‑1982 to 10‑7‑1982. He was charge‑sheeted under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and only on this short ground the learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent. It has been argued that the reason given by the learned lower Court was not sufficient, to set aside the order of dismissal. Undisputedly Standing Orders Ordinance, 1908 applies to the case, so the action could be taken only under the said Ordinance. It has not been shown that Efficiency & Discipline Rules are statutory. According to proviso to section 1(4) (c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance does not apply to those establishments that are being run by or under the authority of any Government and have statutory rules of service. None of the ingredients of the abovementioned proviso stands‑ established on the record. So Standing Orders k Ordinance, 1968 applies. The absence was for six days only (from 5‑7‑1982 to 10 7‑1982), so is not covered by Standing Order 15(3) (e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and thus docs not amount to misconduct. The decision of the learned lower Court, therefore, is unexceptional.
3. As a result, the appeal being without force is dismissed. A.E./1091/Lb.S
1. Appeal dismissed