1993 PLP 541 (PLC(CS))
ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1993 PLP 541 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 541 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 541 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 541 (PLC(CS)) (ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sabihuddin Ahmed for Appellant.
- Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Removal from service‑‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Employee had alleged that when he reported for duty, he was verbally informed by the employers that his services were no more required‑‑‑Employers had contended that employee who had been absent from duty, had later on informed employers that because of his personal involvement he was not in a position to carry on working with employers any more‑‑‑Attendance card of employee produced on record showed that attendance of employee on relevant date was stopped with orders of Director of the establishment‑‑‑Such fact had lent full support to the case of employee that his services were verbally terminated by employers‑‑‑Employee was reinstated with full back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 1st March, 1993. The circumstances in which this appeal against the order allowing the reinstatement of the petitioner has arisen in brief are as follows: The petitioner was working as a Cutting Master with the respondent since 1‑7‑1985. It is alleged that when on 4‑3‑1991 he had reported for duty, he was informed that his services were required no more. He had thereupon sent a grievance notice n the 12th of March which was not replied to, and the petition was filed on the 3rd of April, 1991.
2. In the Written Reply it was alleged that the petitioner had been absent from duty from a date which has been left blank and had later on informed the respondent that because of personal involvement he was not in a position to carry on working with the respondent any more. Again this date, when he had allegedly turned up, had been left blank.
3. The petitioner was his own witness and Nasir Khan and Haji Munawar Khan, the Personnel Manager of the respondent appeared on behalf of the respondent. It might also be mentioned that an affidavit of one Anis Umar Nagda who was the Production Manager of the respondent had been filed but he did not turn up for cross‑examination and so it had to be excluded from consideration.
4. The Labour Court found that the removal of the petitioner was unlawful and allowed the petition. The back benefits were allowed with the deduction of 2 months' salary in view of the evidence of Nasir Khan who had testified that the petitioner had worked with M/s. Grace Apparel (Pvt.) Limited from 12‑10‑1991 to 21‑12‑1991.
5. The petitioner in his affidavit‑in‑evidence had recounted the circumstances in which he had been removed from service and. nothing worthwhile could be elicited from him in cross‑examination. The stand of the appellant all along was it was the respondent who had deserted them and they were even now willing to rejoin him. Haji Munawar Khan also carried on Labour Court. Anyway during cross‑examination he had produced the attendance card of the respondent and on his own showing the entry on the 4th of March is to the effect that the attendance of the respondent had been stopped on the orders of Wasim Ahmed, a Director of the company. This lends full support to the case of the respondent that it was the appellant who had verbally terminated his services on the 4th of March.
6. As the matter stands, the appeal is devoid of all merit. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.
7. As the appellant had repeated the offer to take the respondent back on duty during the earlier rehearing, and the respondent is working with them even uptodate, so the respondent will be entitled to full back benefits from the: 4th of March, 1991 up to the 9th of December, 1992 only and the deduction of the payment of two months as ordered earlier by the Labour Court. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2171/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Orders accordingly.