1996 PLP 158 (PLC)
IMDADUL HAQ Versus M/s. GUL AHMED MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1996 PLP 158 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | IMDADUL HAQ Versus M/s. GUL AHMED MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 158 (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 158 (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 158 (PLC) (IMDADUL HAQ Versus M/s. GUL AHMED MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant.
- Masood Ahmed Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th September, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)
Employee who was dismissed from service on allegation of misconduct after serving him with charge-sheet and holding domestic enquiry against him, had challenged his dismissal alleging that he was charge-sheeted on concocted allegations and was dismissed on account of his union activities-- No evidence was produced in enquiry to show that dismissal of employee was for the reasons of his union activities and that order of dismissal was mala fide
Misconduct on basis of which employee was dismissed having been established, order of dismissal passed by Labour Court could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee who was dismissed from service on allegation of misconduct after serving him with charge‑sheet and holding domestic enquiry against him, had challenged his dismissal alleging that he was charge‑sheeted on concocted allegations and was dismissed on account of his union activities‑‑ No evidence was produced in enquiry to show that dismissal of employee was for the reasons of his union activities and that order of dismissal was mala fide‑‑‑Misconduct on basis of which employee was dismissed having been established, order of dismissal passed by Labour Court could not be interfered with. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant. Masood Ahmed Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th September, 1995. This appeal arises from order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, rejecting the grievance application of the worker filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.
2. The appellant was working in the Dyeing Bleaching Department of the respondent Mills. On the day of the incident the appellant took three hours' leave for some reasons and left the mills promises. The Chowkidar at the gate asked him to submit himself for usual search before leaving. On this the appellant got annoyed and he abused the Chowkidar in filthy terms. Matter was reported to the Management. He was served with the charge‑sheet for misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. The appellant was asked to sign the enquiry papers but he refused. After conclusion of the enquiry he was found guilty and a second show‑cause notice was issued to him regarding his dismissal. Thereafter, he was served with an order dismissing him from service.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was charge‑sheeted on concocted allegations and he has been dismissed on account of hiss union activities. There is however, no evidence in the enquiry to show that the dismissal was for reasons of union activities and the order was mala fide. There is hardly any ground for interference with the finding of the Labour Court. The misconduct of the appellant has been established. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2507/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.