1991 PLP 567 (PLC(CS))
THE FACTORY MANAGER, CENTRAL COTTON MILLS N0. 2, KOTRI Versus MAHMOOD AHMED
| Citation | 1991 PLP 567 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE FACTORY MANAGER, CENTRAL COTTON MILLS N0. 2, KOTRI Versus MAHMOOD AHMED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 567 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 567 (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 567 (PLC(CS)) (THE FACTORY MANAGER, CENTRAL COTTON MILLS N0. 2, KOTRI Versus MAHMOOD AHMED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raees M. Mushtaque for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1990.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Races M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Nemo for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Respondent worker was allegedly removed from service because he was found surplus‑‑‑Respondent alleged that he was orally removed from service which allegation stood unrebutted‑‑‑No proof that alleged order of removal on ground of surplus was ever served upon respondent was on record‑‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition of respondent worker was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1990. This is an appeal against the order-dated 10-10-1989, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, where by the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. I have heard Mr. Races M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Nemo for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was workman employed by the appellants. He is alleged to have been removed from service, because he was found surplus.
4. The respondent however alleged, that he was gate stopped without any order in writing on 1-1-1989 and verbally removed from service. 5.The main ground on which the application was allowed `by' the learned Presiding Officer was that the witness of the appellants did not attend for cross- examination and therefore the case of the respondent stood unrebutted. 6.On going through the record, I also find that the allegation of the respondent that he was orally removed from service stands unrebutted. There is no proof that alleged order of removal on the ground of surplus was ever served upon the respondent. In view of this position, I cannot disagree with the findings of the learned Labour Court. The appeal is dismissed. M.Y.H./1791/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.