1995 PLP 608 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR
| Citation | 1995 PLP 608 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 608 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 608 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 608 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hamid for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1995.
- Heard Mr. Zahid Hamid, Advocate for the Pakistan Steel. Giving the history of the case he has stated that the respondent was dismissed from service for misconduct, that he had got certain non‑genuine bills passed for payment by the doctor of the Steel Mills. This order of dismissal was set aside by the Labour Court and he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. He was then reinstated on 14‑9‑1992 without payment of back benefits. But within six months on 30‑3‑1993 he was again dismissed after a short enquiry on the charge that he had committed theft of his Personal File from the Steel Mill Office. There is no ocular evidence against him and the only circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was that he was the only person interested in stealing that file, therefore, he must have stolen the file from the custody of the Record‑Keeper. This is neither a presumption of law nor of fact, it is merely a conjecture. I therefore find no substance in this appeal, to interfere with the well‑discussed order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, directing reinstatement of the present respondent in service with full back benefits within 30 days. Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Headnotes / Summary
Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after a short enquiry on charge that he committed theft of his personal file from custody of Record‑Keeper of employer mills‑‑‑No ocular evidence was against employee and only circumstantial evidence relied upon by Enquiry Officer was that employee was the only person interested in stealing that file‑‑‑That was neither a presumption of law nor of fact, but was merely a conjecture‑‑‑Employee was, thus, rightly reinstated by Court below with full back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. KAR‑178 of 1995, decided on 23rd April, 1995. Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after a short enquiry on charge that he committed theft of his personal file from custody of Record‑Keeper of employer mills‑‑‑No ocular evidence was against employee and only circumstantial evidence relied upon by Enquiry Officer was that employee was the only person interested in stealing that file‑‑‑That was neither a presumption of law nor of fact, but was merely a conjecture‑‑‑Employee was, thus, rightly reinstated by Court below with full back benefits. Zahid Hamid for Appellant. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1995. Heard Mr. Zahid Hamid, Advocate for the Pakistan Steel. Giving the history of the case he has stated that the respondent was dismissed from service for misconduct, that he had got certain non‑genuine bills passed for payment by the doctor of the Steel Mills. This order of dismissal was set aside by the Labour Court and he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. He was then reinstated on 14‑9‑1992 without payment of back benefits. But within six months on 30‑3‑1993 he was again dismissed after a short enquiry on the charge that he had committed theft of his Personal File from the Steel Mill Office. There is no ocular evidence against him and the only circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was that he was the only person interested in stealing that file, therefore, he must have stolen the file from the custody of the Record‑Keeper. This is neither a presumption of law nor of fact, it is merely a conjecture. I therefore find no substance in this appeal, to interfere with the well‑discussed order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, directing reinstatement of the present respondent in service with full back benefits within 30 days. Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2456/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.