1977 PLP 696 (PLC)
DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM
| Citation | 1977 PLP 696 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 696 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 696 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 696 (PLC) (DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sirajul Haq for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Termination of service ‑Permanent workman applying for leave --Leave not sanctioned and subsequently resumption of duty refused by employer and services terminated‑No charge‑sheet served and no enquiry held‑Re‑instatement, in circumstances, held, fully justified-- Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Termination of service ‑Permanent workman applying for leave --Leave not sanctioned and subsequently resumption of duty refused by employer and services terminated‑No charge‑sheet served and no enquiry held‑Re‑instatement, in circumstances, held, fully justified-- Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A. Sirajul Haq for Appellant. Respondent in person. This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondent.
2. The facts of tare case are fully stated by the Labour Court and I need not repeat them. The respondent was a Fitter in the employment of the appellant. He had gone to Rawalpindi twice. He was said to have sent some application for leave. On the first occasion he was allowed to resume his duties, but second time he was not allowed and his services were terminated. Aggrieved by this, lie served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The respondent appeared in the witness box and his recorded but nobody behalf of the appellant appeared on the adjourned hearing. Thereafter, several hearings took place but negligence was shown by the appellant by not appearing on most of the hearings and no evidence was led. Consequently, the evidence of the respondent which remained un-rebutted was accepted end he was ordered to be reinstated. The dismissal was set-aside on the pound that the respondent was dismissed without any show‑cause notice, charge‑sheet or inquiry.
3. On perusal of record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It was the case of the respondent that he had gone to Rawalpindi and had made applications for leave. There is nothing on record to rebut the allegations. The respondent was a permanent employee and his services could not be terminated without charge‑sheet and inquiry. Thus the Labour Court was fully justified in setting aside the dismissal and ordering re‑instatement.