1995 PLP 79 (PLC)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus M/s. FATEH WEAVING MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1995 PLP 79 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus M/s. FATEH WEAVING MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 79 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 79 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 79 (PLC) (FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus M/s. FATEH WEAVING MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Ahsanul Haque Siddiqui for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st September, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service on ground that he refused to receive charge‑sheet which was delivered to him‑‑‑Refusal to accept letter could not be a misconduct in law, it could be sent by post if employee had refused to receive same‑‑‑Order of dismissal was set aside, but as employee had nowhere stated during proceedings that he was jobless after his dismissal from service, he was not found entitled to any back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Ahsanul Haque Siddiqui for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st September, 1994. The circumstances in which this appeal against the order of the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad whereby the petition for reinstatement was dismissed has arisen in the following circumstances: The petitioner was working as a weaver in the respondent‑mill since July, 1987. On the 8th of July, 1989 he was served with a show‑cause notice as to why he should not be proceeded against for refusing to receive the charge- sheet that was being delivered to him and he was also suspended. He came to be dismissed from service on 3‑8‑1989.
2. Mr. Ahsanul Haque Siddiqui conceded that the refusal to accept the letter could not be a misconduct in law. It could be sent by post.
3. Manifestly there could be no superstructure on such a shaky foundation. The order of dismissal is therefore set aside.
4. The petitioner had nowhere stated during the proceedings that he was jobless after his dismissal from service. He will therefore not be entitled to any back benefit. Orders accordingly, H.B.T./2365/Lb.S Orders accordingly,