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

Section: 12,25

Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: 33

Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.Os. 12 &15---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.33---Termination simplicitor---Allegation of misconduct, absence of---Re-instatement into service---Member-NIRC re-instated workman (lady/Security Assistant) into service with all back benefits by deciding her grievance petition---Petitioner / Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to assail the re-instatement order asserting that due to non-availability of the Respondent [Full Bench-NIRC],its appeal had not yet been fixed for hearing---Contention of the petitioner/company was that the Member-NIRC instead of passing an order on the preliminary objections or framing issues, directly passed the re-instatement order---Validity---Termination Letter showed that reason given for termination of Respondent /employee service was that her services were no longer required and there was also no dispute that one month's salary in lieu of notice was paid to the respondent/employee---Therefore, the petitioner relied upon the provisions of the S.O. 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, ('the Standing Orders 1968'), however, subsections (1) and (5) of S.O., 12 of the S.O., 1968 stipulated that termination on account of misconduct was to be carried out as prescribed in S.O. 15 and that termination for any reason other than misconduct required one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof---According to subsection (3) of S.O. 12 of the Standing Orders 1968, an order, in writing, explicitly stating the reasons for the action taken was necessary in all cases of termination, removal, retrenchment, discharge and dismissal---In the present case, the respondent/Member-NIRC had held that the reason given by the petitioner/company for termination of services of respondent /workman i.e. that her services were no longer required was not an explicit reason for termination of a permanent workman---Petitioner/company had failed to satisfy the High Court as to how such reason was clear, explicit and valid---No reason had been identified as to why the services were suddenly…

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