1997 PLP 635 (PLC)
Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. through Incharge (Law) Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF PATEL
| Citation | 1997 PLP 635 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. through Incharge (Law) Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF PATEL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 635 (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 1997 PLP 635 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 635 (PLC) (Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. through Incharge (Law) Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF PATEL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hamid for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 5th August, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 37(3) & 38‑‑‑Appeal against interim order‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑On remand of case by Labour Court for holding fresh enquiry by employer on point of alleged embezzlement by employee, employer held enquiry accordingly and again found employee guilty of embezzlement‑‑‑Employer instead of reporting finding before Labour Court, filed appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Appeal before Tribunal would lie only against a final order, but order against which appeal was filed by employer was not a final order, but was an interim order pending fresh enquiry‑‑‑Appeal filed by employer, thus, was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Zahid Hamid for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 5th August, 1996. Respondent Muhammad Yousuf Patel was a Cashier in the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. It was alleged that the respondent had drawn Rs.3,000 for payment to one Meerani a trainee in the Steel Mills but the amount was not paid to Meerani in time. Muhammad Yousuf Patel was, therefore, charge‑sheeted and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service. He filed petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement before the 4th Sindh Labour Court Karachi.
2. The contention of the appellant Steel Mills was that respondent Muhammad Yousuf Patel as a Cashier was an officer and he was not a worker. The Labour Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction. The Labour Court, however, found that the respondent was a worker. Finally he was designated as an officer. The Labour Court also found that the embezzlement of Rs.3,000 had not been proved and the enquiry proceedings were irregular The Labour Court, therefore, remanded the case for a fresh enquiry by the Steel Mills on the point of embezzlement. Meanwhile the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service but without back benefits which would depend on the result of fresh enquiry
3. The Steel Mills accordingly held a fresh enquiry and the respondent was again found guilty of embezzlement. Instead of reporting the finding before the Labour Court an appeal has been filed by the Steel Mills Corporation in the Tribunal. The appeal lies only against a final order. This order against which the appeal has been filed is not a final order but an interim order pending fresh enquiry.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Steel Mills are directed to present their enquiry report before the lower Court for final orders in the matter. H.B.T./160/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.