1997 PLP 626 (PLC)
Syed MASOODUL HASSAN and others Versus Messrs MASTER ENTERPRISES (PRVIATE) LIMITED, KARACHI through Factory Manager and others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 626 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed MASOODUL HASSAN and others Versus Messrs MASTER ENTERPRISES (PRVIATE) LIMITED, KARACHI through Factory Manager and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 626 (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 626 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 626 (PLC) (Syed MASOODUL HASSAN and others Versus Messrs MASTER ENTERPRISES (PRVIATE) LIMITED, KARACHI through Factory Manager and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nishat Warsi for Appellant.
- Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th August, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)(4)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated on allegation of misconduct because he was suspected of misappropriation, but he was charge‑sheeted to absence from duty while allegation was refuted by employee by stating that his services were terminated without order in writing and he was gate stopped‑‑‑Labour Court disposed of case without trying to arrive at correct position of case‑‑‑Labour Court should have compelled parties to produce evidence on points alleged by parties and should have come to definite conclusion whether employee or employer was at fault‑‑‑Case was remanded, in circumstances, with direction to hear evidence afresh and to give clear finding on real issues which had arisen in case regarding cause of dismissal of employee and whether same was justified or not.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 5th August, 1996. DECISION These are two appeals one filed by Syed Masoodul Hassan against back benefits and the other by M/s. Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited manufacturers of Molty Foam against reinstatement of their employee Syed Masoodul Hassan after he had been dismissed from service.
2. It is the case of the management that Syed Masoodul Hassan used to purchase raw material for the factory and it was found that he was buying the thread from the market at a rate higher than the market rate and taking the extra commission himself. They, therefore, threatened Syed Masoodul Hassan for this misconduct and Syed Masoodul Hassan absented himself from duty from 20‑2‑1993 till 4‑3‑1993. He was, therefore, charge‑sheeted for this absence and dismissed from service. He sent a grievance notice which was time‑barred by one month and he then filed grievance petition before the Labour Court No. 2.
3. It is on the other hand the case of Syed Masoodul Hassan that he was gate‑stopped from 9‑2‑1993 without any termination order in writing giving reasons. He, therefore, sent his grievance notice in time on 22‑2‑1993 and he sent another grievance notice by way of caution after his dismissal.
4. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui has argued that the learned Labour Court closed his side during his absence because he could not attend the Court on account of strike. He had thus no opportunity to lead his defence evidence.
5. Mr. Nishat Warsi for the workman has on the other hand argued that the matter was adjourned for a number of times to enable the management to complete their evidence but they had failed to do so.
6. Thus it appears that the services of Syed Masoodul Hassan were terminated because he was suspected of misappropriation but he was charge -sheeted for absence. This allegation has been refuted by the worker by stating that his services were terminated without order in writing and he was gate‑stopped. The learned lower Court disposed of the case without trying to A arrive at the correct position of the case. The Court should have compelled the parties to produce evidence on these points and should have come to a definite conclusion whether the worker or the management were at fault.
7. The case is, therefore, remanded to Labour Court No. II with the direction to hear the evidence afresh and to give clear findings on the real issues that arise in this case regarding the cause of dismissal and whether it was justified or not.