1996 PLP 626 (PLC(CS))
AND KNOWN AS KARACHI MARRIOTT HOTEL) Versus PERVAIZ AKHTER and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 626 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AND KNOWN AS KARACHI MARRIOTT HOTEL) Versus PERVAIZ AKHTER and another |
| 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 626 (PLC(CS))?
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 626 (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: 1996 PLP 626 (PLC(CS)) (AND KNOWN AS KARACHI MARRIOTT HOTEL) Versus PERVAIZ AKHTER and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Humayun for Appellants.
- Sher Ali Rizvi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1996.
- 5. I have gone through the record and scrutinised the judgment of the Labour Court and I find the judgment to be well‑reasoned and proper. Mr. Muhammad Humayun, Advocate for the hotel management has not been able to show any ground for interference: The respondent continued to be a worker ink spite of the change in his designation and he was first charge‑sheeted and then his services were terminated simpliciter without giving any reason, in violation of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
S.Os. 12(3) & 15(3)(e)
Employee earlier was charge-sheeted for misconduct under S.0 15(3)(e) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for remaining absent for more than ten days, but that operation was given up
Later on services of employee were terminated simpliciter for the reason that his services were no longer required
Employer under S.O. 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was required to mention explicit reasons for termination of services of employee and "services no longer required" could not be considered to be explicit reason for termination of services of employee
Labour Court, in circumstances, had rightly set aside order terminating services of employee.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Humayun for Appellants. Sher Ali Rizvi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, allowing the petition of respondent, Pervaiz Akhtar, for reinstatement under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. The respondent was appointed as a Waiter in the Hotel Holiday Inn on 30‑5‑1981. He was confirmed. The respondent, thereafter, took active part in his Union. He was charge‑sheeted and removed but he was, afterwards, re appointed as a Waiter on 1‑10‑1986. In January, 1989, the respondent was promoted and re‑designated as Incharge Pastry Department. There was only one other worker with him and he had no supervisory and managerial duties to perform. He continued to work in Pastry Unit.
3. The respondent proceeded on leave from 1‑2‑1989 to 4‑3‑1989 and left for India. There he fell ill and applied for extension of leave with Medical Certificates from qualified Doctors dated 1‑3‑1989 and 15‑3‑1989 that he was suffering from Enteric fever. The Hotel Management, however, issued a charge- sheet for misconduct of remaining absent for more than ten days. The enquiry was fixed on 5‑4‑1989 and the respondent hurried from India and reached Karachi on the same day in the evening but the, date of enquiry was not extended at his request and he was served with a registered letter on 12‑4‑1989 intimating to him that his services had been terminated for the reason that they were no longer required. The respondent, then, instituted proceedings under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. The Labour Court found that although the designation of the respondent was changed as Supervisor/Incharge Pastry Department he was doing the same work. The Cashier whom he was supposed to supervise was drawing more pay than him. That he was first charge‑sheeted for misconduct under Standing, Order 15(3)(e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance but this operation was given up, and his services were terminated simpliciter for the reason that they were no longer required. Under Order 12(3) the management were required to mention explicit reasons for termination of his service and it has been held in several decisions that "services no longer required" cannot be considered to be explicit reason.
4. The Labour Court, accordingly, allowed the grievance petition and set aside the order of termination. The respondent was reinstated in service within a month of the date of the order.
5. I have gone through the record and scrutinised the judgment of the Labour Court and I find the judgment to be well‑reasoned and proper. Mr. Muhammad Humayun, Advocate for the hotel management has not been able to show any ground for interference: The respondent continued to be a worker ink spite of the change in his designation and he was first charge‑sheeted and then his services were terminated simpliciter without giving any reason, in violation of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
6. The judgment of the Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./47/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.