Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 853 2019 SLD 853 2019 PLC 72
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-3115 of 2011, decision Dated: 21-05-2018. Hearing Dated: 07 and 15-05-2018.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shehenshah Hussain
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Shahrayar Mehar, Assistant Advocate-General Sindh for Nos.1 and 3.

SYED FAISAL AZIZ

VS

SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 25A

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i) & S. Os. 12 & 15---Grievance petition---Sales Co-ordinator---Allegations of misappropriation and negligence---Termination from service without inquiry---Effect---"Workman"---Determination of---Procedure---Employee was terminated from service without holding any inquiry---Grievance petition moved by the workman was allowed and he was reinstated into service with all back benefits by the Labour Court but Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said petition---Validity---Whether a person was a workman or not would depend upon the nature and work assigned to him and not the designation---If from the nature of the duties assigned to an employee appeared to be clerical and manual in nature for all practical purposes then said person should be considered as 'workman'---Employee was appointed as Store Incharge and he was to work under Sales Manager---Employee was engaged in clerical and manual job and he was a 'workman' and services of "workman" could not be terminated without inquiry by providing a fair opportunity of hearing---Provisions of S. Os. 12 & 15 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 had not been complied with as neither any inquiry was held nor show cause notice was issued---Legal requirements before terminating the employee had not been fulfilled in the present case---Proceedings initiated against the employee could not be termed to be valid---Termination letter issued by the employer was vacated---Employer would be at liberty to initiate de novo proceedings against the workman in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Abdul Razzaq v. Messrs Ihsan Sons Limited and others 1992 SCMR 505 and Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1992 PLC 1023 ref. Messrs Kohinoor Marble Industries Limited v. Mirza Zamir Baig and another 1991 PLC 408; Managing Director, Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited v. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others 1993 SCMR 488; General Manager, Hotel…
🔒
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