1997 PLC 458 (PLP)
Messrs FARAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus MUBARAK ALI
| Citation | 1997 PLC 458 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs FARAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus MUBARAK ALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLC 458 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLC 458 (PLP)?
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 PLC 458 (PLP) (Messrs FARAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus MUBARAK ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him charge- sheet and holding enquiry against him on allegations that he was guilty of acts, subversive of discipline and that he was a nuisance in the factory‑‑ Nothing was on record to show that any prejudice was caused to employee for any defects in the enquiry proceedings‑‑‑Employee who was found to be nuisance in factory, had to be got rid off especially when he insulted his superiors in the factory and failed to perform his duties‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances, was rightly dismissed from service.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1996. This appeal arises from an order of the VIth Sindh Labour Court Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of Mubarak Ali worker for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts are that the charge‑sheet dated 5‑10‑1992 was served on Mubarak Ali, Oil Man of the Faran Sugar Mills. There were eight charges against him. It was alleged that he was seen loitering in the factory premises and interfering in the administrative matters with the Sectional Heads. 'He was arrogant and he refused to perform over time work whenever he was called upon to do so. He insulted the officers of the factory including Chief Engineer Shift Incharge, Electrical Foreman and the Supervisor. He misbehaved with everybody and wanted to assert himself by asking the administration to discharge daily wage workers. Thus, he was guilty of acts subversive of discipline and was a nuisance. He denied the allegations in the charge‑sheet. He was served with the notice of enquiry. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. He was served with the second show‑cause notice and then dismissed
3. His main contention before Labour Court was that he was not served with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer alongwith the second show‑cause notice.
4. Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq has argued that the omission to serve the Enquiry Report could not be fatal to the proceedings and does not vitiate the enquiry as he was present during the domestic enquiry proceedings and knew what was alleged against him, but having participated in the enquiry the non supply of report is not a material discrepancy to vitiate the proceedings.
5. Respondent Mubarak Ali is not present and there is nothing to show that prejudice was caused to Mubarak Ali for any defects in the enquiry proceedings. From the reading of the charge‑sheet it appears that the respondent was nuisance in the factory and he had to be got rid off as he insulted every superior in the mills and failed to perform his own duties. There is no justification for setting aside his dismissal from service.
6. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal of Faran Sugar Mills is allowed. Any back benefits deposited may be refunded to the mills after thirty days. H.B.T./178/Lb.S Appeal allowed.