1984 PLP 1079 (PLC(CS))
KAUSAR PERVAIZ BHATTI Versus THE DIRECTOR REGAL CERAMICS LTD. LAHORE
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1079 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | KAUSAR PERVAIZ BHATTI Versus THE DIRECTOR REGAL CERAMICS LTD. LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1079 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1079 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1079 (PLC(CS)) (KAUSAR PERVAIZ BHATTI Versus THE DIRECTOR REGAL CERAMICS LTD. LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam for Appellant.
- M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑S. 12 (3)‑Verbal termination of service‑Patently illegal Neither any charge‑sheet served nor any allegations of misconduct made‑Workman refused duty verbally‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with permission to hold enquiry and back benefits made dependent upon result of enquiry‑On appeal order of Labour Court to extent of re‑instatement, held, justified but permission to hold enquiry, in circumstances, held, misconceived and workman, held, continued to be in service and entitled to back benefits also‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑S. 12 (3)‑Verbal termination of service‑Patently illegal Neither any charge‑sheet served nor any allegations of misconduct made‑Workman refused duty verbally‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with permission to hold enquiry and back benefits made dependent upon result of enquiry‑On appeal order of Labour Court to extent of re‑instatement, held, justified but permission to hold enquiry, in circumstances, held, misconceived and workman, held, continued to be in service and entitled to back benefits also‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3). Muhammad Aslam for Appellant. M. S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1983. The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 18th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service but permission to hold enquiry was granted. The question of back benefits was left to depend upon the result of the enquiry.
2. The appellant was appointed as accounts clerk, on 27th September 1980 and was refused duty verbally on 25th February 1982. As no written order of termination was recorded giving explicit reasons, the action was in violation of Standing Order 12 (3) and the direction of re‑instatement is justified. But no question of making enquiry arises, because there are no allegations of misconduct, nor any charge‑sheet was given. If now a charge‑sheet is given, the same will be time‑barred. So the permission to hold enquiry are misconceived. Since the order of refusal of duty was patently illegal being in violation of Standing Order 12 (3), the appellant continued to be in service and was thus entitled to back benefits.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the permission to hold enquiry, uphold the direction of re‑instatement. The appellant is allowed back benefits also. A. E. Appeal accepted.