1979 PLP 83 (PLC)
WALI MUHAMMAD. Versus THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION
| Citation | 1979 PLP 83 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Ataullah Sajjad, Chairman |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD. Versus THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 83 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 83 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Ataullah Sajjad, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 83 (PLC) (WALI MUHAMMAD. Versus THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Shafi Muhammadi for Petitioner.
- Saifullah Siddiqui, Representative for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)‑
S. O. 15, cl. 3(e) read with S. O. 15(4)‑Absence from duty‑Word "misconduct"‑‑Does convey state of mind of a person wilfully committing an act subversive of discipline and good conduct‑Misconduct or an offence without mens sea‑Inconceivable‑Provisions of S. O. 15(4) only raise presumption of misconduct in case of absence without application for leave successively for ten days but such presumption rebuttable‑Open to petitioner to show his being prevented from reporting for duty on account of circumstances beyond his control. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 1, cl. 3(e) & S. O. 15(4)‑Dismissal‑Absence from duty -Opportunity to explain‑Employee absent from duty under com pulsive circumstances beyond his control (confinement in Jail) First inquiry conducted in employee's absence but administrator deciding to hold fresh inquiry on employee's representation‑Effect of fir.,t inquiry washed off‑No charge‑sheet framed before start of first inquiry and no show‑cause notice served on employee‑Pro ceedings started during both inquiries beyond period of one month since commission of alleged misconduct and as such violative of provisions of S. 15(4)‑Order of dismissal, held, of no legal effect in circumstances and employee petitioner re‑instated but with no back benefits. Guftar Shah v. Sind Labour Court No. 3 1974 P L C 205 ; Ghulam Dastgir v. Managing Director, Ravi Rayon P L J 1976 Tr. C (Lah.) 379 ; Shahdra Saharanpvr Light Railway Co. v. Its Union 1970 P L C 538 ; Muhammad Shahid's case 1975 P S C M R 46 ; Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tritunal 1973 S C M R 455 and Messrs Inter national Laboratories Labour Union v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal 1976 PLC38ref.
Judgment & Decree
Case No. 18(21) of 1978, decided on 19th August 1978. (a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)‑
S. O. 15, cl. 3(e) read with S. O. 15(4)‑Absence from duty‑Word "misconduct"‑‑Does convey state of mind of a person wilfully committing an act subversive of discipline and good conduct‑Misconduct or an offence without mens sea‑Inconceivable‑Provisions of S. O. 15(4) only raise presumption of misconduct in case of absence without application for leave successively for ten days but such presumption rebuttable‑Open to petitioner to show his being prevented from reporting for duty on account of circumstances beyond his control. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 1, cl. 3(e) & S. O. 15(4)‑Dismissal‑Absence from duty -Opportunity to explain‑Employee absent from duty under com pulsive circumstances beyond his control (confinement in Jail) First inquiry conducted in employee's absence but administrator deciding to hold fresh inquiry on employee's representation‑Effect of fir.,t inquiry washed off‑No charge‑sheet framed before start of first inquiry and no show‑cause notice served on employee‑Pro ceedings started during both inquiries beyond period of one month since commission of alleged misconduct and as such violative of provisions of S. 15(4)‑Order of dismissal, held, of no legal effect in circumstances and employee petitioner re‑instated but with no back benefits. Guftar Shah v. Sind Labour Court No. 3 1974 P L C 205 ; Ghulam Dastgir v. Managing Director, Ravi Rayon P L J 1976 Tr. C (Lah.) 379 ; Shahdra Saharanpvr Light Railway Co. v. Its Union 1970 P L C 538 ; Muhammad Shahid's case 1975 P S C M R 46 ; Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tritunal 1973 S C M R 455 and Messrs Inter national Laboratories Labour Union v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal 1976 PLC38ref. Muhammad Shafi Muhammadi for Petitioner. Saifullah Siddiqui, Representative for Respondent.