1998 PLP 160 (PLC)
RESIDENT DIRECTOR, Messrs SUMIFFO PLASTIC INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. and another Versus SULTAN HUSSAIN and another
| Citation | 1998 PLP 160 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal N.-W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rehman Khan, Chairman |
| Parties | RESIDENT DIRECTOR, Messrs SUMIFFO PLASTIC INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. and another Versus SULTAN HUSSAIN and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 160 (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 1998 PLP 160 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal N.-W.F.P. bench comprising: Abdur Rehman Khan, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 160 (PLC) (RESIDENT DIRECTOR, Messrs SUMIFFO PLASTIC INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. and another Versus SULTAN HUSSAIN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmed Durrani for Appellants.
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan Gadoon for Respondents.
- I heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and went through the record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15
Employee was removed from service on ground of certain charges allegedly amounting to misconduct, but charge-sheet on basis of which employee was removed from service did not disclose grounds on which charges were based
Such indefinite and vague charges were not sufficient to justify removal of employee from service especially when no enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against him
Employee having failed to prove that he remained jobless during period of his removal from service, was re-instated without awarding him back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Iqbal Ahmed Durrani for Appellants. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Gadoon for Respondents. This appeal has been filed to challenge the legality of order dated 7-11-1995 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan whereby while accepting the grievance petition of the petitioner-respondent moved under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he was reinstated in service with full back benefits. The petitioner-respondent was employed in the establishment of the appellants but his services were terminated on 10-7-1994 on the ground of certain charges allegedly amounting to misconduct. The grievance notice proved ineffective, therefore, grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., was filed which was accepted through the order challenged in this appeal. I heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and went through the record. The basis for the removal from service is the charge-sheet Exh. R. W. 1/2 which reads: The bare reading of this charge-sheet would, therefore, show that it is vague and does not disclose the grounds on which the charges are based. The learned Labour Court was, therefore, correct to hold that such indefinite and vague charges are not sufficient to justify removal from service. The statement of R.W. 1 is also interesting as he stated "There is nothing in writing about the inquiry anyhow the inquiry was conducted. It is correct that I am nothing possession the record today regarding the absence of the petitioner." It is, thus, obvious that even no enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner-respondent. The impugned order to the extent of reinstatement is, therefore, legal and is upheld. It is, however, obvious that the onus of having remained jobless during the period of termination was on the petitioner- respondent but he has said nothing in his statement about this fact to discharge the initial burden of proof. Moreover, it appears that the conduct of the petitioner-respondent is not that much above board to entitle him to the back benefits. The portion of the order allowing back benefits to the petitioner-respondent is, therefore, reversed. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./216/Lb./N.-W.F.P.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order modified.