1972 PLP 438 (PLC)
ABDUL RASHID Versus CAFE MOOSA (MOOSA SETH MALABARI)
| Citation | 1972 PLP 438 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sind Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund, Chairman. F. A. Khan and Kassam Usman |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID Versus CAFE MOOSA (MOOSA SETH MALABARI) |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stand ing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 438 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stand ing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 438 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sind Labour Court bench comprising: Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund, Chairman. F. A. Khan and Kassam Usman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 438 (PLC) (ABDUL RASHID Versus CAFE MOOSA (MOOSA SETH MALABARI)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. O. ‑15 ‑‑ Termination of service for misconduct‑Failure to adopt procedure prescribed in S. O. 15‑No charge‑sheet served and no dues paid‑Action, held, illegal and workman directed to be re‑instated with full back benefits. Abdullah Baluch for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
S. O. ‑15 ‑‑ Termination of service for misconduct‑Failure to adopt procedure prescribed in S. O. 15‑No charge‑sheet served and no dues paid‑Action, held, illegal and workman directed to be re‑instated with full back benefits. Abdullah Baluch for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent. AWARD SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).‑In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks re‑instatement in service sad payment of legal dues from the respondent. The applicant's case is that he was a permanent employee of the respondent since last 2 years. On 15th January 11972, the respondent refused to allow him to perform his duties because the applicant had demanded from him his wages for the month of December 1971. According to the applicant, this action of the respondent was illegal and hence ho has moved this application. The respondent, in his written statement, admits that the applicant was his employee but, according to him, he had been in service only for 110 days as the Cafe had been started 125 days back when the applicant was engaged 15 days thereafter. The respondent further states and the applicant was being paid his wages daily and no wages are due to him. He admits that the applicant was performing his duties satisfactorily but, on 11th January 1972, his customers bycotted his Cafe and told him that the applicant was found committing unnatural offence with an animal. Consequently, the respondent terminated his services because he could not run the Cafe if the applicant was serving therein. However, after filing the Reply Statement, the respondent remained absent and did not lead any evidence. The applicant has sworn an affidavit reiterating the averments made in his application. Since the statement of the applicant stands unchal lenged and there is no evidence in rebuttal. I see no reasons to disbelieve him. Even from the Reply Statement of the respon dent, it appears that the applicant was discharged from service on account of misconduct. Consequently, the respondent could not terminate his services without adopting the procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15 and without payment of his legal dues. Therefore, the application is allowed and the applicant is to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits.