1996 PLP 240 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and 5 others Versus Messrs Y.K.K. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1996 PLP 240 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and 5 others Versus Messrs Y.K.K. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 240 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 240 (PLC)?
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 240 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and 5 others Versus Messrs Y.K.K. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellants.
- Syed Izhar Ahmed Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12
Services of employees were terminated by an order in writing giving reasons for their examination on account of re-organisation due to losses
Employees having been offered all benefits due to them on account of their termination, grievance petitions filed by employees against their termination, were rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Services of employees were terminated by an order in writing giving reasons for their examination on account of re‑organisation due to losses‑‑‑Employees having been offered all benefits due to them on account of their termination, grievance petitions filed by employees against their termination, were rightly dismissed by Labour Court. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellants. Syed Izhar Ahmed Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th November, 1995. These are six appeals of the workers against their termination of service evolving common questions of law and fact. They will therefore be disposed of v this common order.
2. The appellants were employed as Machine Operators, in the respondent factory in the Button and Plastic Section. On 29‑7‑1989 their services were terminated with effect from 31‑8‑1989. According to' the appellants it was a verbal termination giving no reason but according to the respondent management regular written orders were issued to the terminated workers mentioning that on account of lack of demand, the Plastic and Button Department was being closed down and their services were therefore terminated under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance and they may collect their dues from the factory on any day. Thus the termination was under Order 12 of the Standing Orders by an order in writing giving reasons for their termination, being on account of re organisation due to losses. They were offered all the benefits due to them on account of this termination. It is on the other hand the case of the appellants that they were terminated by oral order without any reasons on account of their union activities, but this fact has not been established from evidence. The learned Labour Court accordingly dismissed the grievance petition but advised the workers to contact the management for fresh employment.
3. There is accordingly no substance in these appeals which are dismissed and the order of the lower Court is maintained B.T./2573/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.