Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 1144 1978 SLD 1144 1978 PLC 483
National Industrial Relations Commission
Case No. 18(1) of 1977, decided on 8th January 1978
MAMOON A. KAZI, SENIOR MEMBER

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

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD

VS

RAWALPINDI ELECTRIC POWER Co. LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Law:

Section:

(a) Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)- -- S. 6-Specified authority-Competent not only to exercise powers of legislative nature but can deal with individual grievances-Framing of Regulations -Not a condition precedent for exercise of such jurisdic­tion. (b) Went Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) ---- S. 15 read with Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (Bill of 1952), S. 5-Termination of service for misconduct-Procedure of depart­mental enquiry and show-cause notice-Mandatory-Provisions of S. 5 of Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 though create penalty for persons abandoning employment or absenting from work, it does not authorise employer to terminate service without proper show-cause notice or enquiry-No regulation separately prescribed by Specified Authority under Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952-Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, held, applicable to employees covered by Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Raja Abdul Rashid for Petitioner. Tanveer Bashir Ansari for Respondent. ORDER This petition which is under section 6 of the Essential Services Act bas been filed by petitioner Mohammad Irshad against the Rawalpindi Electric Power Company Limited, Rawalpindi. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the petitioner was employed as a coolie with the respondent­ Company. He went to his village as according to him his house got damaged. Thereafter the petitioner fell sick and could not report back for duty. The Company sent him a notice dated 15th October, 1976, asking him to resume work within three days from the receipt of the said notice but despite that the petitioner failed to return. A photostat copy of this letter (marked as No. IV) has been produced by the petitioner in evidence. The Company finally issued notices through press on 28-10-1976 and 30-1a-1976 advising the petitioner to report back before 8-11-1976 and explain reasons for his unauthorised absence. In response to this the petitioner reported for duty on 6-11-1976 and produced two medical certificates from a private doctor…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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