Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: 33,33(4),57(2)(b),88

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 23

Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Section: 2(i),S.Os.12,15

(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----S. 33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i), S.Os. 12 & 15---Redressal of individual grievances---"Workman"---Scope---Termination of employment of permanent-worker---Reasons for termination---Inquiry to be conducted before termination---Scope---Employer assailed order of National Industrial Relations Commission whereby grievance petition of worker was accepted and his termination was set aside---Contentions of employer were that under the terms of employment it had the right to terminate worker's services by giving him one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof; that termination letter did not stigmatize the worker or adversely affect his future employment prospects and that worker was not a "workman"---Validity---Termination letter when read in isolation did not show that worker's services were terminated due to misconduct however, employer hurled many allegations of misconduct against worker in its reply to grievance notice and reply filed before Labour Court---Employer could not be permitted to take a position inconsistent with the one taken by it in said replies qua the actual reason for worker's termination---Several allegations of misconduct had been leveled against the worker, therefore, it was obligatory for the employer to have conducted an inquiry as required by S.O. 12(5) & 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Employer was required to givereasons in writing for terminating the services of a permanent worker---Simple information to an employee that his services were no longer required was not areason good enough for termination of services and did not justify therequirement of S.O. 12(3)---Worker's designation as per his appointment letter was "Transport Assistant", but he was performing duties of a driver---Duty of driver predominantly involved manual work, therefore, he came within the meaning of a "workman"---Constitutional petition was dismissed. Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 394; Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi v. Government of the Punjab 2004 SCMR 44; Mushtaq…

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