| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1978 SLG 1017 1978 SLD 1017 1978 PLC 240 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-256 of 1977, heard on 13th September 1977.
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-256 of 1977, heard on 13th September 1977.
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI
VS
Syed WAQAR ABBAS
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---- --- S. 2 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 2(xxviii) -' Workman" - Apprentice Held, a workman under Standing Orders Ordinance as well as under I. R. O. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- --- S. 25-A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI (if 1968), S. O. 15-Workman first suspended on account of some misconduct and subsequently removed from service after withdrawing suspension order-Dismissal ordered without serving charge-sheet and holding inquiry in violation of S. O. I5-Order of re-instatement passed by Labour Court not interfered with. K. R Jan for Appellant: Latif Jalili for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th September 1977. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. 2. The respondent was a Trainee Engineer Working as apprentice in the employment of the appellant. On account of some incident he was suspended w. e. f. 10th December, 1976 and subsequently on 21st December, 1976 the suspension order was withdrawn and on the following day his service was terminated. He approached the Labour Court after the service of grievance notice. 3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable and the respondent was not a workman but an officer. It was denied that any grievance notice was given. 4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman and his service was terminated without any charge-sheet or inquiry and, therefore, it yeas not sustainable. Consequently, he ordered re-instatement. 5. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. 6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The first objection…
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