Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 671 2016 SLD 671 2016 PLC 97
Lahore High Court
W.P.No. 9374 of 2012, decided on 17th November, 2015
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J
Munawar Ahmad Javed for Petitioner. Farooq Zaman Qureshi and Athar Farooq for
Respondents.

ASHRAF HUSSAIN

VS

The PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002

Section: 46

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4,9

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)--- ----S. 46---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.12(3)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.9 & 4---Grievance petition---"Workman"---Compulsory retirement---Major penalty, award of---Pre-requisites---Right to be treated fairly and justly---Waiver---Estoppel---Scope---Grievance petition filed by the petitioner employee against dismissal order passed by the respondent Bank was allowed by Labour Court and he was directed to be reinstated into service with all back benefits---Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside order of Labour Court and converted penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement---Validity---No financial loss was caused to the respondent Bank---Petitioner employee was never charged for misconduct throughout his service prior to present incident---Penalty of compulsory retirement could not be awarded under Standing Order 12(3) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Impugned penalty was even otherwise harsh and same was not sustainable in the eye of law---Petitioner employee had been deprived from all the retirement benefits---No adverse action could be taken which was not prescribed by law/rules/regulations---Adverse action offending right to retirement benefits of petitioner employee was also violative of Art.9 of the Constitution---Major penalty could not be imposed lightly and without proof of serious allegations---Punishment awarded must be proportionate to and commensurate with the magnitude of the offence---No estoppel existed against law---Petitioner employee was entitled to be treated in accordance with law---Petitioner employee had right to be dealt with fairly and justly---Mere acceptance of legal dues by an employee would not amount to waiver to estop him from challenging the order passed against the employee---Legal remedy could not be denied to the petitioner employee if charge of misconduct had not been established---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh through speaking order within a specified…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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