2011 PLC 284 (PLP)
Syed SOHAIL AKHTAR Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. through Chief Executive Officer
| Citation | 2011 PLC 284 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Bashir Ahmed Memon, Member |
| Parties | Syed SOHAIL AKHTAR Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. through Chief Executive Officer |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLC 284 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLC 284 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Bashir Ahmed Memon, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLC 284 (PLP) (Syed SOHAIL AKHTAR Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. through Chief Executive Officer). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Lateef Saghar for Petitioner.
- Faisal Mahmood Ghani for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25(8)(g) & 17
Petitioner, employee had alleged certain acts of unfair labour practice on part of employers stating that dui to his trade union activities he was being targetted; and was served with baseless and unfounded charge-sheet
Petition was admitted and employers filed comments/preliminary legal objections
Employers took the plea that as petitioner was working in the Management Cadre, Bench of Commission was not competent to entertain the petition
After admitting the petition by the Commission, the services of the petitioner were terminated after holding of an inquiry
Since the petitioner stood terminated from the service, without going into the merits and demerits, whether petitioner was being targetted due to his trade union activities; whether he was workman or an officer, could not be considered because the petitioner had already been fired upon; and only legal course for the petitioner open now, was to approach proper forum for setting aside termination order.
Judgment & Decree
BASHIR AHMEED MEMON (MEMBER).
The present petition was brought by the petitioner before this Bench of Commission on 23-4-2011 alleging certain acts of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents and he stated that due to his trade union activities he was being targetted and was served with baseless and unfounded charge-sheet dated 6-1-2011. The petitioner has prayed for restraint order but while admitting the petition it was observed that the petitioner was working as Associate Engineer and the charge-sheet served upon him was under KESC Services Policy 2010, as such the undersigned avoided to pass any restraint order'.
2. However, the petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondents who appeared through Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned counsel and filed comments/preliminary legal objections and counter-affidavit etc. denying any act of unfair labour practice and the respondents specifically took the plea that the petitioner was working in the management cadre as such this Bench of Commission was not Competent to entertain the present petition under section 25(8)(g) read with section 17 of the IRA, 2008 which deals with the cases filed by the workman.
3. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents produced by them and I have also perused the tea-se referred by both the learned counsel.
4. It has been brought to the notice. of this Bench of Commission that after admitting the present petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated after holding of an inquiry and such termination order has also been placed on record as Annex.R/3. Since the petitioner stands terminated from service, therefore without going into the merits and demerits whether the petitioner was being targetted due to his trade union activities, whether the petitioner was workman or an officer could not be considered because the petitioner has already been fired upon and only legal course for the petitioner open now is to approach proper forum for setting aside termination order.
5. In view of above observation, the petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. H.B.T./15/NIRC Order accordingl