1971 PLP 177 (PLC)
HYDERABAD Versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1971 PLP 177 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | HYDERABAD Versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 177 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 177 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 177 (PLC) (HYDERABAD Versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A, Majeed for Respondent No. 1,
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. HYD-196 of 1970, heard on 16th September 1970. West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance (IV of 1968), S 38--Industrial dispute-Absence for more than ten days- Dismissal on account of-Not proper without show cause notice and do opportunity of explanation. Azmatullah Khan for appellant. A, Majeed for Respondent No. 1, Date of hearing 16th September 1970, This is an appeal against an award of the learned Labour Court dated 18th June - 1970, whereby the learned Court allowed the application of the respondent under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance. The respondent applied to the Court challenging his dismissal on the ground that the appellant had dismissed him without giving him a show-cause notice.
2. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned Representative for the appellant. He was not able to satisfy me that the respondent could be dismissed from service without being given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action against him. The respondent, no doubt, was absent from service for more than 10 days. He should, however, have been given an opportunity to show cause as to why he had been absent for more than 10 days. He may have been able to satisfy the authorities concerned that his absence from service was due to circumstances beyond his control. The authorities concerned may have taken a reasonable attitude and may have re-instate him. It was, however, in the discretion and judgment of the authorities concerned whether to accept his explanation of being absent from duty without leave or not. The fact remains that the respondent should have been given a charge-sheet before he was dismissed from service.
3. The only point that requires consideration is as to whether he would be entitled to full back benefits or not. In the circumstances of the present case, if the authorities concerned do not propose to take any action against the respondent, they may Pay half of the amount to which he was entitled from the date service to the date that he was re-instated. On the other hand, if they propose to charge-sheet him and if he is exonerated he will be entitled to full back benefits. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.