1984 PLP 158 (PLC)
HAKIMUDDIN Versus EASTERN AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND 4 OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP 158 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, ,IJ |
| Parties | HAKIMUDDIN Versus EASTERN AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND 4 OTHERS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 158 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 158 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, ,IJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 158 (PLC) (HAKIMUDDIN Versus EASTERN AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND 4 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maroof.Aii Khan for Petitioner.
- Ikram Ahmed Ansari for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th September, 1983.
- (b) On the other hand, Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to sustain the charge of other misconducts as concluded by the Inquiry Officer. However, he has conceded that the charge of go‑slow as defined in the above provision has not been proved.
Headnotes / Summary
1983, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art, 199 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII1 of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑Contitutional jurisdiction‑Examination of evidence‑Findings of Labour Appellate Tribunal that workman was " guilty of charge of go‑slow and other misconducts challenged by way of constitutional petition before High Court‑Charge of go‑slow as per definition in S. 2 (d) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 found to have not been proved‑Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal declared by High Court as being without lawful authority case remanded to Appellate Tribunal for examining whether evidence on record was sufficient to sustain charge of other misconducts‑Examination of such evidence being within jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal examination thereof refused by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
2. (a) In support of the above petition, Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows :‑‑ (I)‑ That as per definition of the term go-slow given in section 2 (d) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), the charge of go‑slow was not proved. (ii) That there was not sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge of other misconducts on the part of the petitioner. (b) On the other hand, Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to sustain the charge of other misconducts as concluded by the Inquiry Officer. However, he has conceded that the charge of go‑slow as defined in the above provision has not been proved.
3. It may be advantageous to reproduce herein below section 2 (d) of the Ordinance, which reads as follows :‑ "Section 2 (d)‑-- go‑slow" means an organized, deliberate and purposeful slowing down of normal output or work by a body of workers in a concerted manner and which is not due to any mechanical defect, breakdown of machinery, failure or defect in power‑supply, or in the supply of normal materials and spare parts of machinery." A perusal of the above‑quoted subsection indicates that in order to bring a case within the purview of the above provision, an employer has to prove inter alia the following facts :‑ (a) That the act of go‑slow was an organised act ; (b) That it was a deliberate act ; (c) That it was a purposeful slowing down of normal output or work by a body of workers ; and (d) That the act was a concerted act. Admittedly respondent No. 1 has not produced any evidence to prove the above ingredients.
4. We would, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, we would remand the case to the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of examining the question, whether there is f evidence on the record to sustain the charge of misconductf‑4 other than the allegation of go‑slow. We are not inclined to examine the evidence on the above aspect as it is within the jurisdiction of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. A. E. Petition accepted.