1994 PLP 444 (PLC)
MUSHTAQ Versus Messrs CRESCENT MILLS LIMITED, KOTRI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 444 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ Versus Messrs CRESCENT MILLS LIMITED, KOTRI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 444 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 444 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 444 (PLC) (MUSHTAQ Versus Messrs CRESCENT MILLS LIMITED, KOTRI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Mehmood Ali Khan for Appellant.
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Charge‑sheet‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Employee who earlier was dismissed from service, was reinstated with order of Court‑‑‑Employer, after reinstatement, sent a letter to employee to report for duty immediately‑‑‑Employee could not join duty on stipulated date as according to him he had received information about his reinstatement after expiry of stipulated date fixed by employer for joining duty‑‑‑As soon as employee came to know about his reinstatement, he reported for duty and he was allowed to join duty, but despite that he was issued charge‑sheet asking him to appear before Enquiry Officer for purpose of conducting domestic enquiry on basis of charge that he had wilfully and deliberately remained absent after order of reinstatement was passed‑‑‑No material was on record to doubt about statement of employee that he had learnt of his reinstatement on date when he reported for joining duty‑‑‑Even assuming that employee had received letter of reinstatement earlier, he was not bound to resume duty straightaway‑‑‑Only difference would have been that employee would not be entitled to his wages till date of his resumption‑‑‑No question of absence of employee could arise till he had actually been brought on the muster roll of employer‑‑‑Order of employer, in circumstances, was totally unsustainable.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court whereby the petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, came to be dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner, who was working as a Senior Double Operator was dismissed from service and had been, reinstated by the Labour Court by its order, dated 6‑1‑1991. On 20‑1‑1991 the respondent had sent a letter to him to report for duty immediately. The case of the petitioner is that at the material time he was living at his home in Nawab Shah and got the news of his re instatement when he had contacted his Lawyer on 16‑3‑1991. He had also found there the charge‑sheet which was meant for him. The same day he had reported for duty and there is a note on this Duty Report and also an order probably of the Manager "allowed to resume duty with effect from 16‑3‑1991".
3. He was issued a letter of enquiry dated 24‑3‑1991 which reads as under:‑‑ "You were reinstated in service vide letter No. CML/EST: PF/91/169, dated 28‑1‑1991 as per order of the Honourable VIth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad but you wilfully and deliberately remained absent resulting the management was constrained to serve upon you with a charge‑sheet No. CML/EST: PF/91/205, dated 28‑2‑1991. Your reply to the charge‑sheet has been received on 17‑3‑1991. It is not found satisfactory as such Mr. Muhammad Qaiser Khalil is appointed as Enquiry Officer. You are directed to appear before him on 28‑3‑1991 at 10‑00 a.m. at Establishment Office for the purpose of conducting domestic enquiry on the basis of charge‑sheet referred above."
4. On the showing of the respondents themselves the charge‑sheet sent to the appellant had not been received by him. The charge‑sheet was thereafter sent to his Representative with the following note: "We are sending this letter through your Labour Advisor as when we sent letter to your home address it returned un-served." This is dated 28‑2‑1991. The appellant has stated that he was ill and staying at Nawab Shah. There is no material to doubt about the statement of the appellant that he had learnt of his reinstatement and the charge‑sheet on 16‑3‑1991. Even assuming that he had received the letter of reinstatement earlier he was not bound to resume his duty straight away. The only difference would have been that he would not be entitled to his wages till the date of his resumption.
5. There could be no question of absence till he had actually been brought on the Muster Roll of the respondent. `Absence', according to the Oxford Dictionary means "practice of workers of absenting themselves from work especially frequently or without giving reason'. According to Roget's Thesaurus "Absence" means "non‑attendance: slip away: make oneself scarce".
6. Ostensibly the question of slipping away or absence would not arise, when the ties stood severed. Dr. Races M. Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents, could not advance any cogent reason in support of the charge -sheet, or the consequences that followed.
7. The impugned order, to my mind, is totally unsustainable. I will, therefore, set aside the same and allow the appeal with full back benefits as he has clearly stated that he was jobless. H.B.T./2288/Lb.S Appeal allowed.