1977 PLP 214(1) (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER Versus KOH-I-NOOR SPINNING MILLS LTD,
| Citation | 1977 PLP 214(1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER Versus KOH-I-NOOR SPINNING MILLS LTD, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 214(1) (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 214(1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 214(1) (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER Versus KOH-I-NOOR SPINNING MILLS LTD,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadullah Mumtaz for Appellant.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. O. 15(3) (e)-Habitual absence-Single instance of absence for 6 to 8 days-Does not constitute misconduct of habitual absence Dismissal of workman on such charge set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Petitions Nos. 995 and 996 of 1976, decided on 30th November 1976. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -- S. O. 15(3) (e)-Habitual absence-Single instance of absence for 6 to 8 days-Does not constitute misconduct of habitual absence Dismissal of workman on such charge set aside. Sadullah Mumtaz for Appellant. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Respondent. Petitioners have been dismissed from service by the respondent on the charge of their habitual absence from duty. I have perused the enquiry report as well as the enquiry proceedings. There is no finding of the enquiry officer regarding habitual absence from duty. There is a finding no doubt that Muhammad Yousaf and Baz Khan, petitioners remained continuously absent from duty for 6 to 8 days but that will not constitute misconduct. In that view of the matter petitions are accepted. Management can hold enquiry afresh into the misconduct of habitual absence from duty against the petitioners and in that case payment of back wages would depend upon the result of the enquiry proceedings.