| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1028 2021 SLD 1028 2021 PLC 67 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.As. Nos. 1076 to 1089 of 2019, decided on 5th December, 2019, Date of hearing: 5th December, 2019. (Against the judgment Dated 20.02.2018, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in W.Ps. Nos. 288-292, 296-297 of 2012).
GULZAR AHMED, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Habib ur Rehman, Head of Admn. Martin Dow for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.1076-1082 of 2019). Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Habib ur Rehman, Head of Admn. Martin Dow for
Respondents (in C.As. N
C.As. Nos. 1076 to 1089 of 2019, decided on 5th December, 2019, Date of hearing: 5th December, 2019. (Against the judgment Dated 20.02.2018, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in W.Ps. Nos. 288-292, 296-297 of 2012).
GULZAR AHMED, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Habib ur Rehman, Head of Admn. Martin Dow for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.1076-1082 of 2019). Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Habib ur Rehman, Head of Admn. Martin Dow for
Respondents (in C.As. N
MARTIN DOW MARKER LTD., QUETTA AND OTHERS
VS
ASADULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185,199
Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Section: 15
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 185 199---Appeal before the Supreme Court---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts, also upheld by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---For displacing such concurrent finding of fact, the appellant (before the Supreme Court) was required to show and establish misreading of evidence and wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the forums below. (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----Sched., S.O. 15---Employees reinstated in service refusing to report for employers duty---Lack of bona fides of employees in pursuing their grievance before the courts---After having succeeded in the three forums below, the respondents (employees) were issued respective letter of reinstatement in service by their employer (appellant)---Respondents admitted to the presence of the reinstatement letters and also admitted not joining duty in pursuance of the same---In such circumstances very bona fides of the respondents in pursuing their remedies before the Courts of law seeking their reinstatement in service, became doubtful, in that, the contention of the employer that the respondents were pursuing their cases only for obtaining monetary benefits and had no intention, desire or will, to work as workmen in the establishment of the employer, seemed convincing---Furthermore the respondents had not sent any written communication to the employer in response to their letters of reinstatement, meaning thereby that they had not objected to the said letters---Non-objection to the letter of reinstatement and also non-reporting for duty reflected gravely on the part of the respondents---Respondents remained absent from duty for more than one year and nine months and gave no reason whatsoever for not complying with their letters of reinstatement in service, except an oral assertion that they were offered reinstatement as workmen and not as officers---Such assertion was self-contradictory, for that, they had themselves approached the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal claiming to be workmen, and now it was altogether unbecoming on their part to claim their reinstatement as…
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