1987 PLP 977 (PLC(CS))
COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD NAEEM
| Citation | 1987 PLP 977 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal. |
| Parties | COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD NAEEM |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 977 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 977 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 977 (PLC(CS)) (COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD NAEEM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Samiullah Khan for Appellant.
- S.P. Lodhi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1987.
- 5. I have heard Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation and Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent workman and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant Corporation is a Corporate Body having a Chairman and a Board of Directors. It is also an admitted position that the respondent had filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,, 1969 against the employer, namely, the above mentioned Corporate Body and the reply statement to the grievance petition, filed by the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court was signed by one Mr. Sultan Ahmad Ansari, admittedly working as only Manager (Cash and Bank) having not at all any concern with the administrative affairs of the Corporation or was authorised by the Corporate Body to sign the reply statement and to produce before the learned Labour Court. In view of this admitted, position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has correctly held that the reply statement submitted by the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court was not signed by a competent person so, in fact no reply statement had been filed in the present grievance petition.
- 6. As regards the second contention that the alleged termination of services letter of respondent was not a legal letter as no explicit reason for such termination had given in it. On this legal position Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the respondent has relied on a number of Authorities reported in 1985 P L C at p. 23, at p. 424 and 1984 P L C at p. 792 etc. In view of this legal position also, I would hold that the learned Labour Court was quite, correct in holding such termination order as not legally sustainable On both of these admitted and legal positions. Mr. Samiullah Khan' the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation has no legs to stand.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.2(VII) & 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against employer‑‑Employer a Corporate Body‑‑Reply statement signed by a person neither concerned with administrative affairs nor authorised by corporate body to sign same‑‑Reply statement having been signed by in competent person, held, had not been filed. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑S.O. 12(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑No explicit reasons given in termination letter‑‑Impugned order, in circumstances, held, rightly treated as legally not sustainable and order of Labour Court setting it aside and awarding re‑instatement to workman concerned with full back benefits was upheld by Appellate Tribunal. 1985 P L C 23 and 424 and 1984 P L C 792 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Samiullah Khan for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants, Messrs Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited, Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 23‑11‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent namely, Noor Muhammad Naeem, filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was an employee of the Cotton Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited since 1976 and subsequently this corporation was dissolved and all its administration etc. work was taken over by the present appellant Corporation, namely Messrs Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited, therefore, the employees released from the Cotton Trading Corporation most of them, got fresh appointments in the present appellant Corporation. Thereby, the respondent, also got fresh appointment on 27‑12‑1984 and was posted as Assistant Manager (Cashier) in the Cash and Bank Section of the appellant Corporation. The case of the respondent further was that ‑on 15‑7‑1985 services were all of a sudden dispensed with by the appellant Corporation and being aggrieved with this illegal termination of his services, he filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court.
3. The appellant Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that as the respondent was working purely on temporary basis and his services could be terminated at any time without notice, therefore, the job against which he was working was complete, hence, his services were no more required and thus, dispensed with. So the grievance petition of the respondent was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. The learned Labour Court thereafter has allowed the grievance petition, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation and Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent workman and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant Corporation is a Corporate Body having a Chairman and a Board of Directors. It is also an admitted position that the respondent had filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,, 1969 against the employer, namely, the above mentioned Corporate Body and the reply statement to the grievance petition, filed by the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court was signed by one Mr. Sultan Ahmad Ansari, admittedly working as only Manager (Cash and Bank) having not at all any concern with the administrative affairs of the Corporation or was authorised by the Corporate Body to sign the reply statement and to produce before the learned Labour Court. In view of this admitted, position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has correctly held that the reply statement submitted by the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court was not signed by a competent person so, in fact no reply statement had been filed in the present grievance petition.
6. As regards the second contention that the alleged termination of services letter of respondent was not a legal letter as no explicit reason for such termination had given in it. On this legal position Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the respondent has relied on a number of Authorities reported in 1985 P L C at p. 23, at p. 424 and 1984 P L C at p. 792 etc. In view of this legal position also, I would hold that the learned Labour Court was quite, correct in holding such termination order as not legally sustainable On both of these admitted and legal positions. Mr. Samiullah Khan' the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation has no legs to stand.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss this appeal. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellant Corporation before this Tribunal, be paid to the respondent Noor Muhammad Naeem after due verification. A. E. /959/ Lb. S ??????????? Appeal dismissed