1997 PLP 420 (PLC)
ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN, HYDERABAD Versus GHULAM HABIB
| Citation | 1997 PLP 420 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN, HYDERABAD Versus GHULAM HABIB |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 420 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 420 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 420 (PLC) (ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN, HYDERABAD Versus GHULAM HABIB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood A. Ghani for Appellant.
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os. 12(3) & 20‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑‑Services of employee who had worked as helper m employer factory for more than three years, were terminated without any termination order in writing giving reasons‑‑‑Even if according to employer, employee was appointed as a daily wage worker through contractor and payment was being made to employee through that contractor, employer was still liable and responsible for proper observation of provisions of S.O. 20 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑ ‑Termination of service of employee without any termination order in writing giving reasons, was illegal‑‑ Employee, thus was rightly ordered to be re‑instated in service with 50 % of back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Ref. No. ZP/Admn./94 Discharge Certificate Dated 30‑10‑1994 This is to certify that Mr. Ghulam Habib son of Abbas Khan has been working as a Helper in our Zeal‑Pak Medical Hospital, Hyderabad. He is not working with entire satisfaction and his discharge from service since 29‑10‑1994. (Sd.) (ALI MUHAMMAD), MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION).
2. Mr. Ali Muhammad has filed an affidavit before the Labour Court and he has denied preparation of this Certificate in his office and he has, also denied' the signature on the Certificate purporting to be of Ali Muhammad, Manager Administration.
3. Thus although service of the respondent in the company is admitted this Discharge Certificate is denied by the company. The learned Labour Court has relied upon the admission of the company in the written statement that the respondent was a temporary worker whose services were terminated without any termination order in writing giving reasons. The Labour Court has also doubted the authenticity of the Discharge Certificate produced by the workman. He has accordingly held the termination to be illegal under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance but has not approved the action of the worker in producing a doubtful document on record during the proceedings and he has, therefore, punished him by not awarding full back benefits but reduced them to 50 % .
4. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani is aware of the weakness of his case due to admission in the written statement. He has, therefore, sought to lead additional evidence at the stage of the appeal though this application has not been pressed. His plea is that the respondent was appointed as a daily wage worker through the contractor and the payment was being made to the worker through that contractor but under Order 20 of the Standing Orders Ordinance the employers are still liable and responsible for proper observance of the Standing Orders. There is, therefore, no alternative but to maintain the order of the Labour Court regarding reinstatement with 50% back benefits.
5. In the result the appeal is dismissed. H. B. T./116/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.