1993 PLP 220 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN Versus LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 220 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN Versus LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 220 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 220 (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: 1993 PLP 220 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN Versus LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Malik for Appellant.
- Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee who was appointed as Chowkidar was apprehended by police and case under Arms Ordinance was registered against him‑‑‑Apart from that a delegation of neighbors of employer complained against employee to the effect that employee had been wandering about in a very suspicious manner‑‑‑Neighbors stated that employee was an undesirable character‑‑‑On such information about character of employee and his involvement in criminal case, employer terminated services of employee‑‑ Record had fully established that employer had not been nursing any grudge or malice against employee, but terminated him on complaint of neighbors and due to criminal case against him‑‑‑Employee was rightly dismissed from service in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1992. The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are follows:
2. The appellant was appointed as a Chowkidar at the Head Office of the respondent Company, situated at West Wharf, Karachi, where he used to be on duty in the night hours. It appears that he was apprehended by the police on the night of the 29th of May, 1990 in a case under section 13‑D of the Arms Act.
3. The next day a delegation of the neighbours had visited the Directors of the Company with a complaint to the effect that the appellant had been wandering about in their neighbourhood and stealthily peeping about the quarters occupied by the family of the KPT employees. According to them he was an undesirable character, and the continuation of his service was not desirable either for them or for the Company. Posted with these information s, about his character and involvement in a case, the respondent terminated the services of the appellant by a letter, giving the reasons as reflected earlier and informed him that he could collect his pay for the month in lieu of notice. This he did not do and sent a grievance notice to the respondent and after settling the preliminaries filed a petition before the Labour Court.
4. Apart from himself the appellant examined one Qalandar Khan. There were 2 witnesses on behalf of the respondent namely Irshad Ahmed Khan, the Security Officer of the respondent company and one Rashid Ahmad Khan who was the signatory to the complaint made to the respondent about the suspicious movement of the appellant. He had also accompanied the delegation. The learned Presiding Officer in the circumstances as unfolded, and the evidence led in the case, dismissed the application.
5. Apart from what Rasheed Ahmad has got to say about the questionable movement of the appellant and his signature on the complaint there is an F.I.R. lodged against the appellant which has also been brought on the record. It shows that he was found moving at about 1‑50 a.m. in the vicinity of the KPT flats armed with an unlicensed pistol.
6. It is clearly borne out from the record that the respondent had not been nursing of any grudge or malice against the appellant in any conceivable form. They decided to part company with him after they learnt about his apprehension and reports from the K.P.T. staff of the neighbourhood. He was obviously prowling and not on his duty when apprehended.
7. The appellant states that he had been visiting K.P.T. flats because he had some relatives living there. Nobody has been examined in support of the version. If the respondent had no animus of any sort arid there was no colourable exercise of power there could be no question of any inquiry. There were other parties who had accounts to settle with him not the respondent. They could not afford to keep a man of such reputation, of lack of it, as the appellant. I am informed by the learned counsel that he has been acquitted, but that would be neither here nor there.
8. The petition has been very properly dismissed. I will uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2060/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.