| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2229 2001 SLD 2229 2001 PLC 521 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No.HYD 155 of 1999, decision dated: 19-04-2001.
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No.HYD 155 of 1999, decision dated: 19-04-2001.
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Messrs AMIN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KOTRI
VS
BASHIR AHMED and another
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss.2(xxviii) & 25 A West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i) & S.O.15(3) Misconduct Dismissal from service Status of worker determination of Grievance petition Maintainability Petitioner working as Foreman having been dismissed from service on allegation of misconduct, had filed grievance petition against his dismissal which was allowed by the Labour Court Petitioner being a Foreman was not a "workman" and if he had some manual work, it could be incidental to his main supervisory job Grievance petition filed by petitioner against his dismissal from service, was not maintainable Order of Labour Court whereby grievance petition of petitioner was allowed, was set aside, in circumstances. 1981 PLC 969; 1997.PLC 443 and 1996 PLC 182 ref Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, Representative for Respondents AND Muhammad Humayun for Appellant. DECISION Dissatisfied with the order dated 28 8 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition of, the Respondent Bashir Ahmad was allowed the Appellant Company. M/s Amin Textile Mills Limited S.I.T.E., Kotri hive come in this appeal. The respondent Bashir Ahmed entered service of the Appellant Company as Foreman of its Air Condition Section it! supervisory capacity. Though he worked to the entire satisfaction of the Management of the Company, yet on 14 4 1997 when he reached office he was refused to be taken on duty and was informed verbally that he had been dismissed. Hearing this, he sent grievance notice to the Appellant Company for his reinstatement and back benefits but his grievance remained unredressed. He, therefore, filed grievance petition on 26 9 1999 with the above result. 2. In the written reply the Appellant Company denied the respondent's allegations, stating further that the respondent himself chose to remain absent from his duty for the reasons best known to him. When he was asked to collect his dues he refused point blank and instead filed grievance petition. The Appellant Company took a plea that the respondent was not a workman and therefore, could not avail the benefit of section 25…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492