1996 PLP 285 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another Versus Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN through General Manager and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 285 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another Versus Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN through General Manager and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 285 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 285 (PLC)?
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: 1996 PLP 285 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another Versus Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN through General Manager and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellants.
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995.
- Heard Mr. Raees Mushtaq for the Fauji Sugar Mills. The Advocate for the appellants had gone for religious tours but it is reported that he had since returned and is in Hyderabad. He has not chosen to appear in this Tribunal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 37(3)
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15
Competency-- Order of dismissal, earlier passed by employer against employees, was set aside by Labour Court as it was passed in violation of S.O. 15 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968-- Labour Court though set aside order of dismissal, but permitted employer to proceed against employees afresh under S.O. 15 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and employees had challenged that part of order of Labour Court in appeals before Tribunal-- Employer meanwhile had charge-sheeted employees and after following proper procedure according to order of Labour Court, again terminated services of employees and employees had again filed their grievance petition in Labour Court which were pending in Court
Appeals filed before Tribunal against order of Labour Court, thus, had become infructuous and were accordingly dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37(3)‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Competency‑‑ Order of dismissal, earlier passed by employer against employees, was set aside by Labour Court as it was passed in violation of S.O. 15 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑ Labour Court though set aside order of dismissal, but permitted employer to proceed against employees afresh under S.O. 15 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and employees had challenged that part of order of Labour Court in appeals before Tribunal‑‑ Employer meanwhile had charge‑sheeted employees and after following proper procedure according to order of Labour Court, again terminated services of employees and employees had again filed their grievance petition in Labour Court which were pending in Court‑‑‑Appeals filed before Tribunal against order of Labour Court, thus, had become infructuous and were accordingly dismissed. Nemo for Appellants. Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995. Heard Mr. Raees Mushtaq for the Fauji Sugar Mills. The Advocate for the appellants had gone for religious tours but it is reported that he had since returned and is in Hyderabad. He has not chosen to appear in this Tribunal.
2. The facts are very simple. The General Manager, Fauji Sugar Mills dismissed the two appellants Chowkidars Muhammad Hussain and Khadim Hussain because of neglect of duty as they did not try to intervene and protect the management from assault by the workers. This order of dismissal was passed under section 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance but Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance applies only when the termination is for any reason other than misconduct. In this case the dismissal order was for misconduct on which the procedure is domestic enquiry as laid down in Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. But no charge‑sheet was served nor domestic enquiry held. The order of dismissal was therefore in violation of Standing Order 15 and was set aside by the Labour Court. The Labour Court however permitted the management to proceed against the workers afresh under Standing Order
15. Against this the workers have come in appeal to the Tribunal. Meanwhile the management have charge‑sheeted the workers and after following the proper procedure they have again terminated their service and they have again filed their grievance petitions in the Labour Court which are pending.
3. These appeals have therefore become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. H. B. T./10/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.