| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 1769 1977 SLD 1769 1977 PLC 706 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-445 of 1976, decided on 20th December 1976.
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-445 of 1976, decided on 20th December 1976.
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MESSRS SABINA LTD.
VS
MUHAMMAD RAHIM ETC
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)------- -- S. O. 11-A-Closure of establishment-Retrenchment of less than 50% of total number of workmen without permission of Labour Court Held, not in violation of S. O. 11-A. Ghulam Hassan for Appellant. Kohistani for Respondent, DECISION These are 24 appeals against the order of the Labour Court involving common ground. 2. The respondents were working as weavers in the Weaving Department of the appellant. Since the production of weaving fabric was found to be uneconomical the work was completely stopped and layoff was effected from 27th December 1975 to 9thJanuary 1976. There was no improvement in the conditions which were prevailing and therefore the Weaving Department was permanently closed w. e. f. 10thJanuary, 1976. In that department there were in all 55 workmen who3e services were terminated. Out of them 31 workmen served grievance notices and approached the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R, O. for re-instatement. Subsequently, there was settlement with 7 workmen and, therefore there remained the present 24 respondents whose cases were decided by the Labour Court. 3. The applications were resisted and various grounds were taken. One of the grounds taken was that there had been no Violation of Standing Order No, II (A) of Standing Orders Ordinance and therefore the termination of services was not open to any exception. 4. The respondents had filed the affidavit of Mohammad Rahim. Subsequently, it was agreed by both the parties that the cross-examination of Mohammad Rahim be treated as evidence in all the cases. As a result of this agreement Mohammad Rahim was cross-examined. During the cross-examination he denied having filed any affidavit. He however admitted that the Weaving Department was closed. 5, The learned Presiding Officer entertained the view that the appellant had not proved that the employment of less thin 50% of the workmen was terminate) and since no permission by the Court was sought to close down the establishment, the termination of service was illegal and invalid. The remaining objections raised by the appellant were also repelled. With…
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