1993 PLP 524 (PLC(CS))
SARDAR HUSSAIN and 11 others Versus M/s. SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI and others
| Citation | 1993 PLP 524 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SARDAR HUSSAIN and 11 others Versus M/s. SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 524 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 524 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 524 (PLC(CS)) (SARDAR HUSSAIN and 11 others Versus M/s. SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Latif Saghar for Appellants.
- Farooq H. Naek for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.Os. 13, 14 & 15‑‑‑Retrenchment or dismissal‑‑‑Employees who were employed by employer to work as security guards with respondent had worked for a number of years, but their services were terminated by employer without any notice and enquiry on asking of respondent that they should be removed as they were undesirable guards‑‑‑Case was not of retrenchment as claimed by employer, but was of dismissal and that too without any enquiry‑‑‑Employees were rightly ordered to be reinstated. Ghulam Muhammad v. United States Agency for National Developments (US Aid) Mission, Islamabad 1986 SCMR 907 and Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. PLD 1981 SC 81 ref. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employees who remained jobless during period of their dismissal, were entitled to full back benefits from date their services came to be terminated. Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1991 SCMR 2087 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Maqbool A. Siddique?? ??????????????????????? ??????????? C‑127????????????? 7 A‑142 (8)??????? ??????????????????????? Syed Muhammad Ali??? C‑139 8 A‑143 (9)??????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Sardar Hussain???????????? ??????????? C‑116? 9 A‑149 (10) ???? ?Shah Jehan????????????????? ??????????????????????? D‑157????????????? 10 A‑151 (11) ???? ??????????? Abdul Salam???????????????? C‑72??? 11 A‑192 (12) ???? ??????????? Taj Muhammad??????????? ??????????????????????????????????? C‑84??? 12 A‑154 (13) ???? Jamaluddin?????? ??????????? C‑65??????????????? 13 A‑156? (14) ??? Muhammad Owais?????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Checker 14 M‑036 (15) ???? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Shamsher Ahmed???????? ??????????? Checker 15 A‑152 (16) ???? ??????????????????????? Abdul Waseem C‑72??? 16 A‑266? (17) ??? ??????????????????????? Muhammad Zareef?????? 34 BYJ??????????? 17 A‑210 (18) ???? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Muhammad Ismail??????? C‑85??? 18 A‑27 (19) ?????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Iqbal Ahmed??? Office J. Guard 19 A‑122 Muhammad Nazeer????? C‑65."
17. It transpires that the Security Guards had formed a Trade Union and all of the petitioners were office‑bearers; Sardar Hussain being the President thereof. We need not simulate as to the reasons, culminating in their removal, but manifestly it is not a case of retrenchment but of dismissal and that too without any enquiry.
18. Otherwise too it is also brought on the record that the employers were not maintaining any seniority list of their employees and manifestly that was in breach of Standing Order 13 of the Ordinance, as the principle of last come first go had not been followed. That by itself will make the orders of termination unsustainable as held in Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. PLD 1981 SC 81.
19. Looked at from .any angle the termination of the services of the petitioners is indefensible and had to be struck down.
20. The Labour Court had however declined to award back benefits, as the petitioners had not asked for the same in their evidence. I have been shown that there was an express mention of their being jobless in para. 14 of their petition. The contents of the petition were re‑affirmed and reiterated in the affidavits filed by them. Looking to the principles laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another reported in 1991 SCMR 2087, I am of the opinion that they will be entitled to full back benefits from the day their services came to be terminated by M/s. Security and Management.
21. As a result the appeal filed by M/s. Security Management Services stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioners is allowed. Order accordingly. H.B.T./2158/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.