1997 PLP 118 (PLC)
SHAUKAT ALI Versus M/s. TAPAL TEA (PVT.) LIMITED, through Factory Manager, Karachi
| Citation | 1997 PLP 118 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI Versus M/s. TAPAL TEA (PVT.) LIMITED, through Factory Manager, Karachi |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 118 (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 118 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 118 (PLC) (SHAUKAT ALI Versus M/s. TAPAL TEA (PVT.) LIMITED, through Factory Manager, Karachi). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 51‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. Os. 8 & 15(3)(e)‑‑‑Gate stop‑‑ Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement to‑‑‑Employee absented himself for ten days due to illness and reported for duty on eleventh day, but was not allowed to join duty without medical certificate‑‑‑Employee on next day produced medical certificate for ten days from a private doctor and not from authorised doctor‑‑‑Alleged "misconduct" on basis of which employee was gate stopped, was not technically complete as according to S.O. 15(3)(e) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, "misconduct" of employee would be completed in case he remained absent for more than ten days whereas employee absented for ten days‑‑‑Misconduct of employee having not been completed, he should not have been gate stopped, but as employee could not produce medical certificate of authorised doctor, he could not be allowed back benefits for period of his absence from duty. Gohar Iqbal for the Worker. Muhammad Humayun for Management.
Judgment & Decree
Gohar Iqbal for the Worker. Muhammad Humayun for Management. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1996. These are two cross‑appeals filed by the Management and the worker of Tapal Tea Company.
2. The facts are more or less admitted. The worker absented himself on 6‑2‑1992 and informed the office on telephone regarding his illness. After 10 days i.e. 16‑2‑1992 the worker reported for duty but he was not allowed to join duty and was directed to produce Medical. Certificate of illness. He appeared on 17‑2‑1992 and submitted certificate which showed that he was suffering from Chicken Pox and was fit to resume duty from 16‑2‑1992. Ordinarily a patient of Chicken Pox is not certified fit for duty within such a short time as he is still capable of transferring the infection to fellow workers. The authenticity of the Certificate has been doubted on the ground that it is from a Private Medical Practitioner instead of a Social Security Hospital Doctor since the workman was entitled to free treatment at such hospital.
3. The learned Labour Court found that the workman was absent' from 6‑2‑1992 to 15‑2‑1992 but on 16‑2‑1992 he reported for duty though he was not allowed to enter the premises without a Medical Certificate. The Standing Order 15(3)(e) defines the misconduct as absence without leave for more than 10 days. In this case it was absence for 10 days only and on the 11th day the worker reported for duty, therefore, technically the misconduct is not complete but on the question of leave on medical grounds the worker should have followed Standing Order
8. Standing Order 8 under which if he desired to obtain leave he had to apply to the employer in writing alongwith Medical Certificate during the period of absence. He only applied on expiry of the leave period, therefore, although he could not be said to be guilty of misconduct under 15(3)(e) he has not behaved in a manner which can be termed as above board.
4. Under the circumstances the Labour Court has not allowed him the back benefits which he cannot claim as of right. I accordingly maintain the order of the Labour Court and dismiss both the appeals. H.B.T./80/Lb.S Order accordingly