1994 PLP 626 (PLC)
M/s. PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI through General Manager, LAC Versus SHAH AZMAT
| Citation | 1994 PLP 626 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI through General Manager, LAC Versus SHAH AZMAT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 626 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 626 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 626 (PLC) (M/s. PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI through General Manager, LAC Versus SHAH AZMAT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdus Samad for Appellant.
- Gohar Iqbal for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.Os. 2‑A & 12(3)‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Verbal removal ‑‑‑Legality‑‑ Employee who according to his assertion had worked as fitter for about seven years, was verbally removed from service by employers‑‑‑Contention of employers was that employee was never in their permanent employment, but had worked for some time as temporary daily wage‑earner and left service of his own‑‑‑Employers had further contended that employee being temporary daily wage‑earner, neither was entitled to appointment letter showing terms of his appointment nor order in writing showing reasons of his removal from service‑‑‑Contention of employers were repelled in view of the fact that whatever the nature of appointment may be employee could not be removed from service without order in writing explicitly stating reasons for such removal‑‑‑Verbal removal of employee, in circumstances, could not hold ground, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service with "consequential benefits". It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner alleged that he had been working with the respondent as a fitter since 1984 and had been verbally removed from the job on 16‑1‑1991. He had sent the grievance notice and as there was no word of comfort for him, he had filed the petition before the Labour Court.
3. In the written statement filed by the respondent all that was‑stated was "that the applicant was never in employment since 1984 till 16‑1‑1991 as permanent employee as alleged. The applicant has worked for some time as temporary daily wage‑earner in the year 1990 and left the service of his own accord since 16‑1‑1991, as no notice is to be given by a temporary employee in law
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Mehfooz Hussain Zaidi, Deputy Manager, Accounts Department and Haroon Rashid Abbasi, an employee of Security Department appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, allowed the petition with back benefits resulting in this appeal.
6. The respondent, in support of his contention, had produced an Identity Card, a Card from the Chairman, Vigilance Team and a Transport Card which pertain to the years 1989 and 1990 respectively. The Deputy Manager Mehfooz Hussain Zaidi could not deny about the period of his service as, according to him, he was not a permanent employee.
7. Clause 2‑A of the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 provides that "every workman at the time of his appointment, transfer or promotion shall be provided with an order in writing, showing the terms and conditions of his service". Whatever the nature of appointment there should have been a letter of appointment and one cannot, therefore, say that the allegation of the respondent are without any basis.
8. What is worse is that according to clause (3) of Standing order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, "the services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken". That also was not done. Though it was the bounden obligation of the appellants under the law. There is a plethora of case‑law that mere verbal termination of service, as patently it was, cannot hold ground.
9. There is no merit in the appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the same. H.B.T./2324/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.