Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 5353 = 1966 SLD 5353 = 1966 PLD 822
West Pakistan Lahore
Writ Petition No. 139 of 1965, decided on 24th February 1966.
Presented By: S. A. Mahmood and Shaukat Ali, JJ
Mahmooduz Zaman for Petitioner.   Nemo for
Respondent No. 1.   Muhammad Asghar Khadim for
Respondent No. 2.  

GENERAL     MANAGER, PAK-AMERICAN FERTILIZERS LTD.-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  INDUSTRIAL           COURT,         LAHORE       AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of1960)

Section: 13(3),13(a)

Law: Industrial Disputes Ordinance, (LVI of 1959)

Section: 12(4)

(a)        Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960)----   ------ S. O. 13 (3) (a)-Word "wilful"-Meaning. The Queen v. Senior (1899) QB 283; Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills. Limited (1933) 2 K B D 669 and Black's Law Dictionary ref.   (b)       Industrial       and      Commercial   Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960)-----   ---S. O. 13 (3) (a)-Misconduct-Worker on night duty found asleep-Act of "sleeping", whether and when constitutes "misconduct".   (c) Industrial Disputes Ordinance (LVI of 1959)------   ----S. 12(4) High Court has power under Art. 98 of Constitution to interfere with order of Chairman, Industrial Court, where necessary conditions for exercise of such power exist.   The General Manager, Pak-American Fertilizers Limited, Iskandarbad (Daudkhel), District Mianwali v. Industrial Court Lahore and another 1966 P L C 422 ref.   Date of hearing: 10th February 1966.    JUDGMENT   S. A. MAHMOOD, J.-Muhammad Masoom, respondent No. 2, who was working as a Junior Operator in the Pak-American Fertilizers Factory, was found asleep while on duty in Con version Plant in the third shift, on the night between the 16th and 17th of January 1964, at about 3-20 a.m. He was issued a showcause notice on the 18th of January 1964, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted his explanation, and as it was found to be unsatisfactory, a Board of Inquiry was constituted, which came to the conclusion that he was guilty of gross mis-conduct in the discharge of his duties. His record showed that he had been issued a warning for leaving the plant without the permission of the Engineer Incharge, and was also in the habit of coming late on duty. The Company, therefore, desired to dismiss him from service and referred his case to the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal under section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance LVI of 1959, as he was an office bearer of the Employees Union, for obtaining…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register