1989 PLP 662 (PLC(CS))
Messrs RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD Versus TALIB HUSSAIN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 662 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | Messrs RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD Versus TALIB HUSSAIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 662 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 662 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 662 (PLC(CS)) (Messrs RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD Versus TALIB HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Altaf for Appellant.
- Munawar Ahmed Javed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38{3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). S.0.12‑‑Grievance petition against termination of services‑‑Services terminated within probationary period‑‑Labour Court's view that workman had become permanent not substantiated by record‑ Order of termination, however, had been rightly set aside by Labour Court since it was oral whereas requirement of law is that it should be in writing stating therein explicit reasons for terminating services.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38{3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). S.0.12‑‑Grievance petition against termination of services‑‑Services terminated within probationary period‑‑Labour Court's view that workman had become permanent not substantiated by record‑ Order of termination, however, had been rightly set aside by Labour Court since it was oral whereas requirement of law is that it should be in writing stating therein explicit reasons for terminating services. Javed Altaf for Appellant. Munawar Ahmed Javed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 21‑7‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Office, Punjab Labour Court NoA, Faisalabad whereby the respondent has been treated as a permanent employee and has beer directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was temporarily employed on 18‑3‑1987 and within the probationary period of three months his services were terminated. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show that the respondent was a permanent employee on the date on which his services were terminated. On the record there is no material to show that he had become a permanent employee. The learned lower Court thus wrongly held without evidence that the respondent had become permanent. However, the order of termination has been rightly set aside since it was oral whereas the provision of Standing Order 12(3) is that by written order giving explicit reasons services of a workman can be terminated.
3. As a result the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned decision is modified setting aside the declaration that the respondent is a permanent employee. The order of reinstatement with back benefits shall stand. AA./605/Lb.S Appeal partly accepted.