1997 PLP 628 (PLC)
Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus RUSTAM KHAN
| Citation | 1997 PLP 628 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus RUSTAM KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 628 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 628 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 628 (PLC) (Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus RUSTAM KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Latif Saghar for Appellant. S. P. Lodhi,
- Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st August, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os. 12(3) & 20‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Liability of employer‑‑‑Services of employee who had worked in employer Mills for three years, were terminated orally without giving any reason for such termination‑‑‑Employer contended that it had given contract for labour to a contractor and that employee was employed by that contractor and was also paid by contractor‑‑‑Employer failed to prove that it had employed a contractor to deal with labour‑‑‑On spot inspection it was found that machinery, raw material were handled by management of employer Mills and employee had worked with the employer's management for three years‑‑‑No reason thus existed to terminate services of employee orally and without order in writing explicitly giving reasons as required by 5.0. 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Employee was ordered to be re‑instated.
Judgment & Decree
Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1996. This appeal by M/s. Dawood Cotton Mills arise from the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of worker Rustam Khan for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The respondent was working. in the Appellant Mills for about three years. He could not attend duty for two days that is on 13‑3‑1993 and 14‑3‑1993 due to illness and he informed the management in time. On 15‑3‑1993 when he reported for duty his services were orally terminated.
3. It is the case of the appellants that they had given the contract for labour in the Doubling Department to one Mr. Inayat and the respondent worker was employed by the contractor and also paid by him. Notice of this appeal has been sent to the contractor several times but this always returned un-served because he is neither in the mill premises nor at his residence. It is doubtful whether such a contractor does exist often. times fictitious documents are produced showing the management of the factory or mill to have been transferred to a contractor who in fact does not exist. For this reason to verify whether he is running the mill the Tribunal offered to visit the mill premises this very day to see how for he is controlling the manufacture of yarn. The Manager of M/s. Dawood Cotton Mills, however, admits that the contractor is not present at the mill premises because the mills have been closed down.
4. The learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that appellant Dawood Cotton Mills had taken a false plea that they had employed a I contractor. On the other hand the machinery, raw material etc; were handled by the management and the respondent had worked for three years with this management and there was no reason to terminate the services of the A respondent and that also by an oral order and without an order in writing explicitly giving the reasons as required under Order 12(3), of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The contractor was not registered under section 20 of the Social Security Ordinance. The liability is of the Mill also under section 20 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The respondent has, therefore, been rightly reinstated by the Labour Court and I can see no reason for interference.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed H.B.T./173/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.