1997 PLP 418 (PLC)
M.A. QAYYUM SIDDIQUI Versus Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., KARACHI through Factory Manager/Occupier
| Citation | 1997 PLP 418 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M.A. QAYYUM SIDDIQUI Versus Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., KARACHI through Factory Manager/Occupier |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 418 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 418 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 418 (PLC) (M.A. QAYYUM SIDDIQUI Versus Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., KARACHI through Factory Manager/Occupier). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Faiz Ghanghro for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing" Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e)‑‑‑Dismissal from service on ground of habitual absence from duty‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him charge sheet and holding enquiry against him on allegation that he was found to be guilty of habitual absence from duty without leave‑‑‑Employee in response to charge‑sheet issued to him had himself pleaded guilty of charge against him and he had not alleged that enquiry proceedings against him were false, fictitious or defective or that Enquiry Officer had any enmity or bias against him‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances, was rightly dismissed from service.
Judgment & Decree
Faiz Ghanghro for Appellant. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed and he was not reinstated in service.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was employed as a workman in the respondent‑company for a long time. He had the habit of remaining absent without leave on several occasions every year. Ultimately he was charge‑sheeted for habitual absence under Order 15(3)(e). An enquiry was held through the Enquiry Officer. The appellant was read out the allegations in the charge‑sheet to which he pleaded guilty in the following words:‑‑ "The allegations in the charge‑sheet are true."
3. In spite of the plea of guilt the enquiry was held and evidence was recorded and the appellant was found to be guilty of habitual absence. He was, therefore, dismissed from service. The appellant filed grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to be dismissed. Against this order he has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. It has been argued by Mr. Faiz Ghanghro for the appellant that the plea was not signed by the appellant though his signature appears above his plea of guilt but the appellant was associated with the enquiry proceedings and there is no allegation that the proceedings were false, fictitious or defective; nor has any enmity or bias been alleged against the Enquiry Officer. The only allegation is of the habitual absence for which an elaborate enquiry is not required. I accordingly agree with the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss this appeal in limine. H.B.T./112/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.