Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3104 = 1981 SLD 3104 = 1981 PLC 210
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-9 of 1980, heard on 22nd January, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.

GHULAM MEHDI

VERSUS

MESSRS HASHMI CAN COMPANY LTD., KARACHI

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute Domestic enquiry-Notices issued at given address and. also pub lished in newspapers of wide circulation-Service in circumstances, held, could safely be presumed-Plea of non-service rejected. Date of hearing 22nd January, 1980.                                                                                                                                                 ORDER This appeal is directed against a decision by the learned IInd Labour Court, given on 8th- December, 1979, dismissing the grievance application of the appellant workman. 2. The appellant, who was a permanent workman in the respondent establishment was granted one month's leave with effect from 23rd May, 1977, in order to visit his native place in Baltistan. As he failed to report for duty on the expiry of his leave, his services were terminated by the respondent establishment with effect from 10th October, 1977. The appellant challenged his dismissal orders before the learned Labour Court which rejected his claim and upheld the orders of dismissal. 3. I have heard Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned Representative for the appellant, and have also carefully gone through the record of the learned Labour Court. Mr. Ashraf Hussain assailed tile impugned order of the learned Labour Court on the grounds-(a) that no domestic enquiry was held in respect of the appellant. (b) that Dither due notice of the charge-sheet other holding of enquiry was given to the appellant nor were the second show-cause notice and dismissal orders sent to the appel lant at his correct address, and (3) that approval of the employer was not obtained to the appellant's dismissal. 4. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it might be mention ed that the case of the appellant is that during the period of his leave, he fell ill at his…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register