1997 PLP 119 (PLC)
GENERAL MANAGER (A&P) PAKISTAN STEEL through Incharge Versus MUHAMMAD NAYYAR ASHRAF and another
| Citation | 1997 PLP 119 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER (A&P) PAKISTAN STEEL through Incharge Versus MUHAMMAD NAYYAR ASHRAF and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 119 (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 119 (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 119 (PLC) (GENERAL MANAGER (A&P) PAKISTAN STEEL through Incharge Versus MUHAMMAD NAYYAR ASHRAF and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dilawar Hussain for Appellants
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S,O. 12‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated orally without order in writing giving reasons of termination‑‑‑Employee even if was temporary worker, no distinction was made between permanent and temporary worker under S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and in case of every worker termination order should be in writing giving reasons‑‑‑Order terminating services of employee, thus was illegal and was rightly set aside by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Dilawar Hussain for Appellants Date of hearing: 31st March, 1996. Heard Mr. Dilawar Hussain for the appellant. This Appeal arises from an order of Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Nayyar Ashraf for his reinstatement in service was allowed with full back benefits.
2. It is the case of the respondent that he was employed in service of Pakistan Steel on 1‑7‑1991 as a workman. His job was of permanent nature. His services were terminated on 2‑2‑1992 but no order of termination was given to him giving reasons, but he was simply gate stopped.
3. The learned Labour Court found that the respondent was appointed on monthly salary of Rs.1,200 on 1‑7‑1991 till 2‑2‑1992 when he was orally informed that his services had been terminated. Termination was thus illegal and mala fide. Under Standing Order 12(3) any workman whether permanent or temporary has to be given an order in writing on termination of his service explicitly stating the reasons for the termination. In the present case even according to the case of the Steel Mills the workman was appointed twice for 89 days each so as to retain him as a temporary worker though on permanent basis but under Standing Order 12, subsection (3) no distinction is made between permanent and temporary worker. In case of any, worker the termination order is to be in writing giving reasons. The termination of the respondent was, therefore, in violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance as held by the Labour Court.
4. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and this appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./88/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.