1995 PLP 606 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through Deputy General Manager (Law), Karachi Versus NISAR AHMED MEMON
| Citation | 1995 PLP 606 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through Deputy General Manager (Law), Karachi Versus NISAR AHMED MEMON |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 606 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 606 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 606 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through Deputy General Manager (Law), Karachi Versus NISAR AHMED MEMON). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amanullah Agha for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1995.
- 2. The respondent was initially appointed as a Cashier. He was thereafter promoted as Assistant Manager and posted at Makli in the Lime Stone Project Section. He had no clerk or peon to assist him. On 18‑8‑1993 the respondent was charge‑sheeted for absence of 3 days in July, 1993, 3 days in August, 1993 and late coming for 3 days in June, 1993 and 3 days in July, 1993 and 2 days in August, 1993. He was also charged with leaving the Headquarters because he visited the Head Office without prior permission on three occasions. Thereafter, the respondent proceeded on medical leave from 29‑8‑1993 to 16‑9‑1993 due to pain in the joint of his foot. He was admitted in Latif Memorial Hospital. Hyderabad and was advised 2 month's rest. When respondent rejoined on 14‑11‑1993 he was told that the enquiry had been proceeded with ex parte against him and he had been dismissed from service. The learned Labour Court found that a few instances of absence or leaving Headquarters for and on account of visiting the Head Office and regarding the charge of coming late in Karachi Head Office, the fault was of the conveyance provided by the Steel Mill and not misconduct of the respondent, nor could the absence on account of surgery of his foot be regarded as a misconduct. He accordingly set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the respondent. The learned Advocate for the Steel Mill Mr. Amanullah Agha has firstly argued and it Industrial dispute, the Labour Court could not entertain the grievance petition. But section 25‑A of the I.R.O. is not confined to Industrial dispute alone. Any workman aggrieved by the dismissal has a right to file a grievance petition. He has next argued that the learned Labour Court has not considered other minor charges in the charge‑sheet such as leaving Headquarters etc. but these minor charges under Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders are not punishable as misconduct resulting in dismissal. The respondent had 17 years service to his credit and he could not be got rid off in this manner. I accordingly find no substance in this appeal which is dismissed in Limine.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by, employee against his dismissal from service was challenged by employer contending that since dismissal of employee from service was individual grievance and not an industrial dispute, Labour Court could not entertain such grievance petition‑‑‑Held, any workman aggrieved by his dismissal from service had a right to file a grievance petition as S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not confined to industrial dispute alone. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Minor charges against employee such as leaving headquarters, etc. and coming late m Head Office, were not punishable as "misconduct" resulting in dismissal of employees.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by, employee against his dismissal from service was challenged by employer contending that since dismissal of employee from service was individual grievance and not an industrial dispute, Labour Court could not entertain such grievance petition‑‑‑Held, any workman aggrieved by his dismissal from service had a right to file a grievance petition as S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not confined to industrial dispute alone. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Minor charges against employee such as leaving headquarters, etc. and coming late m Head Office, were not punishable as "misconduct" resulting in dismissal of employees. Amanullah Agha for Appellant. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1995. This appeal by Pakistan Steel arises from order of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad whereby the dismissal order passed by the Steel Mill against the respondent Nisar Ahmed Memon was set aside and he was dire to be reinstated in service with all the back benefits.
2. The respondent was initially appointed as a Cashier. He was thereafter promoted as Assistant Manager and posted at Makli in the Lime Stone Project Section. He had no clerk or peon to assist him. On 18‑8‑1993 the respondent was charge‑sheeted for absence of 3 days in July, 1993, 3 days in August, 1993 and late coming for 3 days in June, 1993 and 3 days in July, 1993 and 2 days in August, 1993. He was also charged with leaving the Headquarters because he visited the Head Office without prior permission on three occasions. Thereafter, the respondent proceeded on medical leave from 29‑8‑1993 to 16‑9‑1993 due to pain in the joint of his foot. He was admitted in Latif Memorial Hospital. Hyderabad and was advised 2 month's rest. When respondent rejoined on 14‑11‑1993 he was told that the enquiry had been proceeded with ex parte against him and he had been dismissed from service. The learned Labour Court found that a few instances of absence or leaving Headquarters for and on account of visiting the Head Office and regarding the charge of coming late in Karachi Head Office, the fault was of the conveyance provided by the Steel Mill and not misconduct of the respondent, nor could the absence on account of surgery of his foot be regarded as a misconduct. He accordingly set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the respondent. The learned Advocate for the Steel Mill Mr. Amanullah Agha has firstly argued and it Industrial dispute, the Labour Court could not entertain the grievance petition. But section 25‑A of the I.R.O. is not confined to Industrial dispute alone. Any workman aggrieved by the dismissal has a right to file a grievance petition. He has next argued that the learned Labour Court has not considered other minor charges in the charge‑sheet such as leaving Headquarters etc. but these minor charges under Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders are not punishable as misconduct resulting in dismissal. The respondent had 17 years service to his credit and he could not be got rid off in this manner. I accordingly find no substance in this appeal which is dismissed in Limine. H.B.T ./2454/Lb.s Appeal dismissed.