1986 PLP 479 (PLC(CS))
GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CRESCENT BOARDS LIMITED, FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 479 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CRESCENT BOARDS LIMITED, FAISALABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 479 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 479 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 479 (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CRESCENT BOARDS LIMITED, FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pervez Inayat Malik for Appellant.
- M.S. Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(a)‑‑Misconduct Refusal to obey lawful and reasonable orders‑‑Wrokman of one department asked to work in other department in duty hours temporarily and workman knowing such work‑‑Such order, would be valid and reasonable‑‑Refusal of such order, held, would amount to misconduct anti consequential dismissal from service upheld.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(a)‑‑Misconduct Refusal to obey lawful and reasonable orders‑‑Wrokman of one department asked to work in other department in duty hours temporarily and workman knowing such work‑‑Such order, would be valid and reasonable‑‑Refusal of such order, held, would amount to misconduct anti consequential dismissal from service upheld. Pervez Inayat Malik for Appellant. M.S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1984. The decision, dated 26‑3‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed was that he had refused to work in the Godown. The appellant admitted that he had refused but pleaded that his duty was in Chips Board and not in the Godown. Besides his admission the allegation was proved by the evidence of Mr. Abdullah, Deputy Plant Manager, Chip Board and Mr. Muhammad Younas, Manager, Chip Board. The appellant examined Muhammad Boots in defence, which shows that he was afforded proper opportunity to produce defence. He cross‑examined the prosecution witnesses also. It has been argued that the appellant was required to work without overtime, whereas overtime is allowed to the workers working in the Godown. Muhammad Younas, Manager, had said that if it was necessary that the workers of Chip Board should be made to work in the godown and overtime was allowed for doing duty after duty hours. The appellant did not state that he was asked to work after duty hours without overtime. Instead of working iii his own Department he was asked to work in the Godown during duty hours, so the order was quite valid and reasonable. The officers have to see if someone was required to work temporarily in other department and the employees cannot refuse if they know the work. The appellant thus committed misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(a) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 by refusing to obey a lawful and reasonable order of Muhammad Abdullah, Deputy Manager. He was thus rightly proceeded against and dismissed. His grievance petition having no merits was thus rightly disallowed.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.9. Appeal dismissed.