1992 PLP 759 (PLC(CS))
MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus RIAZUDDIN
| Citation | 1992 PLP 759 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus RIAZUDDIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 759 (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 1992 PLP 759 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 759 (PLC(CS)) (MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus RIAZUDDIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raes M. Mushtaq for Appellant.
- Muhammad Moosa Laghari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S-O.15(4)
Grievance petition-- Reinstatement
Respondent was charge-sheeted for remaining absent for more than ten days but he was dismissed for being habitually absent i.e. a charge which was never brought to his notice
Held order of termination was not tenable and was rightly set aside by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Raes M. Mushtaq for Appellant. Muhammad Moosa Laghari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, dated 31-8-1989; whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be re instated in service with consequential benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The respondent was charge-sheeted on 5-12-1987 for remaining absent without intimation from 20-11-1987 to date viz., for more than 10 days. However, his services were terminated vide order, dated 20-1-1988, for being habitual absentee.
4. Apparently, the respondent was dismissed from service on a charge which was not brought to his notice and for which he was not charge-sheeted. Standing Order 15 (4) of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, bans the dismissal of any workman unless the alleged act of misconduct has been brought to his notice. In the instant case, the alleged act of misconduct viz., being in the habit of remaining absent was never brought to the notice of the respondent and as such the impugned order of termination from service was not tenable and has rightly been set aside by the learned Labour Court. I see no merits in this appeal and would dismiss the same. M.Y.H./1836/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.