1977 PLP 261 (PLC)
Present: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal SHAHZADA Versus MESSRS ATLAS PLASTIC & RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1977 PLP 261 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal SHAHZADA |
| Parties | Present: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal SHAHZADA Versus MESSRS ATLAS PLASTIC & RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 261 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 261 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal SHAHZADA.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 261 (PLC) (Present: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal SHAHZADA Versus MESSRS ATLAS PLASTIC & RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Latif Jalili for Appellant. Date of hearing: 12th October 1976. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court on an application made under section 25‑A.
2. The appellant was a permanent workman in the employment of the respondent. There was some allegation of mi6conduct against him. He was dismissed from service without any charge‑sheet and enquiry. He, therefore, approached the Lahore Court after serving grievance notice. The respondent resisted the application.
3. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court held that since the applicant was neither given charge‑sheet nor any enquiry was held, he could not be dismissed from service. He, therefore, ordered re‑instatement allowing the respondent to hold enquiry and take further action on the conclusion of the enquiry.
4. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, allowing the respondent to hold further enquiry, had filed the present appeal. According to him no enquiry should be held. There is no force in the appeal. The learned Presiding Officer was justified in passing the order as it was passed.