1996 PLP 546 (PLC(CS))
ISLAMUDDIN Versus WELLCOME PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI through Manager/Occupier
| Citation | 1996 PLP 546 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ISLAMUDDIN Versus WELLCOME PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI through Manager/Occupier |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 546 (PLC(CS))?
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 1996 PLP 546 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 546 (PLC(CS)) (ISLAMUDDIN Versus WELLCOME PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI through Manager/Occupier). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Atique Qureshi for Appellant.
- S. Wazarat Hussain Zaidi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O. 15(3)(f)
Employee was dismissed from service after charge-sheeting him and holding domestic enquiry against him on charge, of absenting himself without leave for more than 10 days
Employee who had admitted charge against him had failed to give convincing reasons for a his habitual absence from duty without leave
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Atique Qureshi for Appellant. S. Wazarat Hussain Zaidi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1996. The appellant was a driver for distribution of medicines to shops in Karachi. He was in the habit of absenting himself without leave and he remained absent from June, 1986 to December, 1986. The management, therefore, charge sheeted the appellant and after domestic enquiry conducted on 3rd February, 1987 he was dismissed. A second show‑cause notice was given before the final dismissal.
2. The case of the appellant was that he was quality of absence on account of domestic worries and sickness at home, he should be pardoned and given one more chance that he would never remain absent in future.
3. Mr. Muhammad Atique Qureshi has argued that these periods of absences were old and the charge‑sheet was time‑barred. The last two periods of absences were from 4th July, 1988 to 27th July,. 1988 and the period of habitual late attendance under section 15(3)(f) of the Standing Orders Ordinance as given in the charge‑sheet was from January, 1987 to July, 1988 and the charge‑sheet was, dated 17th August, 1988. The charge‑sheet was, therefore, not time‑barred. The charge has practically been admitted by the appellant in his Written Statement.
4. I can, therefore, find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T.I73/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.