1973 PLP 172 (PLC)
ABDUL GRAFFAR Versus MESSRS SHER ALI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALIBHOY E. SUTHERIA LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1973 PLP 172 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | 1st Sind Labour Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL GRAFFAR Versus MESSRS SHER ALI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALIBHOY E. SUTHERIA LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 172 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 172 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the 1st Sind Labour Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 172 (PLC) (ABDUL GRAFFAR Versus MESSRS SHER ALI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALIBHOY E. SUTHERIA LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXTII of 1969), S. 25-A [as Inserted by Labour Laws (Amendment,) Ordinance (IX of 1972)] -Re-instatement-Duster from service without show-cause notice, charge-sheet, domestic enquiry etc.- Workman representing against ouster to employer but receiving no reply-Workman, in circumstances, awarded re-instatement with all legal dues. Maarif Choudhry for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Maarif Choudhry for Applicant. On 3rd July 1972 the above named applicant filed an application under section 25-A of I. R. O. as amended against the, above-named respondents in this Court. In his application, the applicant submitted that in 1963, he joined the respondents as Supervisor on monthly salary of its. 250.00 and was a permanent worker. On 30th April 1972, he lost his services as a consequence to ouster from service without show-cause notice, charge-sheet, domestic enquiry and payment of all legal dues. According to him such type of ouster had no recognition in law. That on 12th May 1972, the applicant orally as well as in writing approached the respondents for re-instatement and restoration of service but it produced no result. He, therefore, prayed for declaration that ouster of the applicant from service was malicious and illegal and was not operative in law and hence he was entitled to re-instatement and restoration with full back benefits. His alternate prayer was for payment of all legal dues according to full entitlement. The respondents remained absent in spite of service. Hence on 9th October 1912, an ex marts order was, passed against them respondents. The applicant has filed his affidavit in ex parts proof" re-affirming all the averments as made by him in his application. The respondents are ex parse. There is nothing in rebuttal. Hence I have no reason to disbelieve the version of the applicant. Accordingly I allow the application of the applicant and direct the respondants to re-instate him and grant him all the legal dues.