Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1627 1982 SLD 1627 1982 PLC 850
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-173 of 1981, heard on 17th February, 1982.
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

GHULAM MURTAZA

VS

SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LTD.

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- --- S. 1 (4)-Ambit of Ordinance-Sind Industrial Trading Estate run under authority of Provincial Government--No statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline applicable to its employees­ Not exempted from operation of Ordinance. Sind Industrial Trading Estate v. Board of Revenue and 3 others P L D 1975 Kar. 129 distinguished. Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. 111, Karachi and another 1979 P L C 179 rel. M. L. Shahani for Appellant. Tariq Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1982. ORDER The service of the appellant, who was employed as a Clerk under the control of the Engineer-in-Chief of the respondent-Company, were terminated, vide office order, dated 28th May, 1980. The said order was based on the domestic enquiry proceedings held against the appellant in which it is stated that an act of serious misconduct on the part of the appellant was established against him. The appellant challenged the order of termination of his services before the learned 1l[rd Labour Court which dismissed his grievance petition on account of the absence of the appellant, who was to appear for cross-examination, vide its order, dated 5th November, 1980. On appeal, this Tribunal, by its order, given on 26th January, 1981, set aside the orders of the learned Labour Court and remanded the case to it for decision on merits a this Tribunal was of the view that there was nothing to contradict the application submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant before the learned Labour Court that the appellant was ill and hence the prayer of the learned counsel for a short adjournment should not have been rejected. On remand, the appellant was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent-Company but it appears that no evidence was recorded on behalf of the respondent company as its side was closed on account of the fact that despite sufficient opportunities being given to it, it failed to adduce any evidence. The learned Labour Court, by its fresh decision given on 11th March, 1981, 'has again dismissed the grie­vance…
🔒
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