1996 PLP 230 (PLC)
KARACHI through Chairman Versus AHMAD BUX
| Citation | 1996 PLP 230 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KARACHI through Chairman Versus AHMAD BUX |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 230 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 230 (PLC)?
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: 1996 PLP 230 (PLC) (KARACHI through Chairman Versus AHMAD BUX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O. 15(3)
Employee had incurred considerable amount every month as expense for medicines of his mother who suffered from kidney disease which was considered to be a misconduct and employee was dismissed from service on allegation of misconduct
Employer admitted that no limit was fixed for medical charges of the employee and his family and in absence of any clause in S.O. 15(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 providing excessive billing as misconduct, employer could not get rid of employee on such an excuse-- Employee, thus, was rightly re-instated with full back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. KAR‑456 of 1995, decided on 20th November, 1995. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee had incurred considerable amount every month as expense for medicines of his mother who suffered from kidney disease which was considered to be a misconduct and employee was dismissed from service on allegation of misconduct‑‑‑Employer admitted that no limit was fixed for medical charges of the employee and his family and in absence of any clause in S.O. 15(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 providing excessive billing as misconduct, employer could not get rid of employee on such an excuse‑‑ Employee, thus, was rightly re‑instated with full back benefits. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui for Appellant. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1995. Mother of an employee of Pakistan Steel Mills namely the respondent, suffered from kidney disease. The only remedy was either kidney transplant or dialysis which was very expensive The respondent applied for a loan of Rs.1,00,000 to purchase a kidney for transplant but this was rejected. He then had to take his mother periodically for dialysis. He claimed the medical expenses for his mother admissible under the Steel Mills Employees Rules. The Steel Mills found retaining of the respondent in service to be very expensive. The respondent had incurred Rs.11,000 and then 5,000 or 6,000 every month as expense for medicines. This was considered to be a misconduct and he was found guilty and dismissed from service. The Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi directed re‑instatement of the respondent with full back benefits since the order of dismissal was on the face of it ridiculous and uncalled for.
2. The learned counsel for the Steel Mills admits that there is no limit fixed for the medical charges of the worker and his family by the Steel Mills. Under Order 15(3) there is no clause which converts excessive billing as misconduct. The learned counsel thinks that these excessive charges obviously constitute fraud or dishonesty regarding employers Medical Fund but the management cannot get rid off the workman on such an excuse. Steel Mills do not believe in donation or charity and they want to deprive the worker even of his legitimate wages. The grievance petition has therefore been rightly allowed by the Labour Court and I can see no reason for interference. This appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2561/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.