| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 1078 1979 SLD 1078 1979 PLC 541 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. HYD-16 to 19 of 1978, decided on 28th March, 1979.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeals Nos. HYD-16 to 19 of 1978, decided on 28th March, 1979.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
VS
R. M. ISHAQUE ETC.
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial dispute,-- ---- Retrenchment-Sind Road Transport Corporation employees terminated on account of retrenchment--Termination order challenged on ground that District Manager who issued such order was, according to rules, not competent to terminate service of such employees-District Manager found having been specifically authorised by Chairman to make retrenchment and termination of service of surplus employees-District Manager having been delegated such power by Chairman impugned order, held, not exceptionable on that ground. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 25-A-Termination of service on account of retrenchment challenged-Plea that persons junior were subsequently re-instated-Plea neither mentioned in grievance notice nor in application under S. 25-A-Fresh case, in circumstances, held, could not be made out in evidence before Labour Court. (c) Industrial dispute-- ---- Retrenchment--Termination of individual worker not mentioning reason of termination but simply mentioning "services were no longer required"-Reason however given in general order that services terminated on account of retrenchment-Plea that termination order was not sustainable, in circumstances, rejected. Azmatullah for Appellant. S. F. H. .Rizvi for Respondents. DECISION These are four appeals against the common order allowing the applications made by the respondents under section 25-A of I. R. O. and ordering re-instatement with back benefits. 2. The respondents were in the employment of the appellant. Their services had been terminated. Consequently they served grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. 3. The applications were resisted and it was pleaded that on account of retrenchment the services of the respondents were terminated as they were the junior most. 4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the District Manager who had terminated the services of the respondents was not competent to remove them from service as the respondents were in Class III and this power was vested in the Member Administration or the Chairman of S. R. T. C. by virtue…
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