Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 1082 1979 SLD 1082 1979 PLC 490
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-209 of 1979, heard on 25th July, 1979.
Z. A. CHANNA, 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

MURID HUSSAIN

VS

MANAGER, POLY PROPYLANE PRODUCTS LTD., KARACHI

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute- ---- Domestic enquiry-Notice seat through registered post on correct address-Not received back undelivered-Deemed to have been served-Ex parte proceedings, held, not objectionable-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 27. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -----S. 25-A-Petition against dismissal order-Grievance notice and petition made before actual order and even before services of charge-sheet-Premature and not maintainable. Choudhry M. Maarif for Appellant. Masood Mirza for Respondent. Date of bearing : 25th July, 1979. ORDER This appeal by a workman is directed against the order, dated 29th April, 1979, by the learned First Labour Court, dismissing the appellant's application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement in service with back .benefits. 2. The case of the appellant is that he was a permanent workman of the respondent, being employed as a weaver on a monthly salary of Rs. 400 and that his services were suddenly terminated by the respondent orally on 17th February 1977, without assigning any reasons. The respondent resisted the appellant's claim for re-instatement in service and grant of back benefits on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice and the application by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R. O., were premature in that they were both made before the appellant's services were dispensed with, and secondly, that the appellant was guilty of misconduct, in that he had remained absent without leave, and in consequence thereof he was dismissed from service after a proper and fair domestic enquiry. 3. I have heard Mr. Ch. Maarif for the appellant and Mr. Masood Mirza for the respondent. The only ground on which Mr. Maarif assailed the impugned order was that there was no tangible proof that a domestic enquiry was at all held by the respondent, and even if such enquiry was held no action on its basis can be taken against the appellant as it was held in violation of rules of natural austice and suffers from other serious irregularities. He submitted that there is no proof whatsoever that the charge-sheet was served upon the appellant and that admittedly the…
🔒
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