1988 PLP 794 (PLC(CS))
FACTORY MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, OKARA.TEXTILE, (PVT.) LTD., OKARA Versus MUFAMMAD YASIN
| Citation | 1988 PLP 794 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FACTORY MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, OKARA.TEXTILE, (PVT.) LTD., OKARA Versus MUFAMMAD YASIN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 794 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 794 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 794 (PLC(CS)) (FACTORY MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, OKARA.TEXTILE, (PVT.) LTD., OKARA Versus MUFAMMAD YASIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Awan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A, 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal due to misconduct of absence for more than 10 days‑‑Workman's leave applications supported by medical certificates‑‑Medical certificates, not accepted on ground that same were not issued by Social Security Doctor‑‑No suggestion that certificates were bogus‑‑Mere fact that certificates were not taken from Social Security, held, was not sufficient for non‑acceptance of such certificates‑‑Workman had to get treatment by a doctor in whom he had confidence‑‑Workman having submitted leave application supported by ;Medical Certificate, held, could not be said to be a wilful absentee‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits was maintained by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A, 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal due to misconduct of absence for more than 10 days‑‑Workman's leave applications supported by medical certificates‑‑Medical certificates, not accepted on ground that same were not issued by Social Security Doctor‑‑No suggestion that certificates were bogus‑‑Mere fact that certificates were not taken from Social Security, held, was not sufficient for non‑acceptance of such certificates‑‑Workman had to get treatment by a doctor in whom he had confidence‑‑Workman having submitted leave application supported by ;Medical Certificate, held, could not be said to be a wilful absentee‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits was maintained by Appellate Tribunal. Ali Ahmad Awan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 17‑1‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service was accepted.
2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was of absence without leave. The leave applications were accompanied by medical certificates. The medical certificates were not accepted by the appellant on the ground that they had not been issued by the Social Security, although the doctor who had issued the same used to work in the Social Security also. Since the respondent had been applying for leave and the applications were supported by.[ medical certificates, it cannot be said that he was a wilful absentee. The appellants have not shown that the certificates were bogus. The mere fact that the certificates were not taken from Social Security was not sufficient. The respondent had to get himself treated by doctor in whom he had confidence. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court has rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, they were rightly allowed for the days for which the respondent remained jobless:
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./531/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.