| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 68 1989 SLD 68 = 1989 PLC 153 |
Petition No. 256 of 1986 decided on 30th July, 1988.
Salah-ud-Din Zafar, Presiding Officer
GHULAM SARWAR
VERSUS
GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through its Chairman, and 2 others
Law:
Section:
This petition has been brought by Ghulam Sarwar under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is based on the following facts. Ghulam Sarwar, petitioner joined the service of Ghee Corporation of Pakistan in November 1980 as Deputy Manager (Accounts). He joined the Seed Division of the Corporation. He was confirmed as Manager-II (Finance & Accounts), Ghee Corporation of Pakistan, Seed Division on 31st of May, 1981 after the completion of period of probation satisfactorily. He was promoted as Manager I (F & A) on 5th of August, 1982. The petitioner worked in the Ghee Corporation of Pakistan in that capacity for a few months. Thereafter his services were placed at the disposal of Suraj Ghee Industries Ltd., Sheikhupura as Chief Accountant. It was done on 10th of January, 1983. He worked there till 22nd of January, 1985. His services were terminated by the management of Suraj Ghee Industries Ltd., on that day. It has been asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner during all this period of service had been engaged in the preparation of accounts like the preparation of budget and preparation and maintenance of balance-sheet. The nature of his duties was skilled, clerical and manual. He, therefore, claimed to be a workman as given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and was and is entitled to the protection and guarantees available to a workman. His services as already mentioned were terminated on 22nd of January, 1985 without any charge sheet, inquiry or providing him opportunity of defence. He had even not been served with a notice of termination of service. The petitioner thereafter served a grievance notice upon the respondents, but to no effect. He was, therefore, forced to bring this petition for redress of his grievance. He asserted that the post, against which he was working, still existed and was of a permanent nature. It has not been retrenched. The business of the Company has also not been wound up. He was not junior or incompetent person or unqualified person working against the post to be vacated by him for a qualified person. He has been condemned unheard. Under the circumstances he prayed that his dismissal…