1991 PLP 859 (PLC(CS))
METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES Versus Raja HASSAN AKHTAR
| Citation | 1991 PLP 859 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES Versus Raja HASSAN AKHTAR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 859 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 859 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 859 (PLC(CS)) (METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES Versus Raja HASSAN AKHTAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Wasi Ahmed, Representative for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 12 & 15(4)‑‑‑Termination of workman‑‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Termination order passed against workman by employer and even admission of witness produced by employer, had left ho room for doubt that termination of workman was not termination "simpliciter" as envisaged under S.O. 12 of Ordinance, but was termination due to misconduct of workman which called for action under S.O. 15(4)‑‑‑Procedure provided under S.O. 15(4.) of Ordinance having not been resorted to by employer, workman was rightly reinstated by Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1991. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Labour Court No. III at Karachi dated 21-2-1991 whereby the grievance application of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmed for the appellant and have also gone through the relevant papers.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent admittedly was employed with the appellant. On 1.2-6-1990 the appellant served respondent with the termination order which may be reproduced as under:- "As observed you are working in betrayal of confidence and you are not sincere to your employer. In the above circumstances, your services are terminated to the interest of this management. Faced with the above situation and as a consequence of the exercise of power as conferred by Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 1968, your services are herewith terminated with immediate effect, without any allegation and stigma." 3-A. Mr. Wasi Ahmed contends that the termination of the respondent was termination simpliciter but the perusal of the termination order would show otherwise. It clearly shows that his services had been terminated because of misconduct as he was betraying confidence of the employer and was not fair to the employer. The learned Labour Court has also referred to admission of witness of the appellant to the effect that services of the respondent were terminated because the respondent had raised speed of machine in order to increase the production but the heating system was not in accordance with the speed, resulting in manufacturing of defective colour.
4. The termination order and the admission of the witness of the appellant leaves no room for doubt that the termination of the respondent was not termination simpliciter but was termination due to misconduct for which the procedure provided under Standing Order 15(4) was not resorted to by the appellant.
5. In view of the above position, I find no merit m this appeal, which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1916/Lb.S ?????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.