| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 1338 1983 SLD 1338 1983 PLC 150 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-173 of 1982, decided on t3th July, 1982.
Z. A. CHANNA, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-173 of 1982, decided on t3th July, 1982.
Z. A. CHANNA, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MESSRS ALMAHMOOD FOUNDRY WORKSHOP AND REROLLING MILLS, KAKACHI
VS
MUHAMMAD REHMAN
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -- S. O. 12-Probationer - Discharge during probation period allegedly on account of unsatisfactory work-Evidence of Foreman incharge indicative that work being satisfactory-Job of permanent nature requiring hard labour-Eight persons employed and none made permanent-Such fact giving impression that employer getting rid of workman deliberately during probation period, so as to avoid making him permanent-Discharge, is circumstances, held, not bona fide-Re-instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38. Syed Zamirul Hassan for Appellants. Mahmood Mubassir for Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th July, 1982. DECISION The appellants are a foundry and re-rolling steel mills. The work in the mills requires the employment of several tongsmen besides other workers. In the month of September, 198!.1 the exact date of appointment is disputed respondent Mohammad Rehman was engaged by the appellants as a tongsman in their mills. According to the appellant he was employed as a probationer and during the period of his probation, in December, 1980-again the exact date of termination of service is disputed-he was discharged from service as his services were not found satisfactory. The respondent, after service of the requisite grievance notice, preferred a grievance petition before the learned Second Labour Court challenging his discharge from service. The appellants resisted the grievance petition on the twin grounds that the respondent was discharged during the period of his probation and that his work has not been found satisfactory. The learned Labour Court repelled both these contentions and has taken the view that the respondent was employed by the appellant with effect from 1st September, 1980 and hence he had completed his probationary period when he is said to have been discharged from service and that further the stand of the appellants that the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory has been destroyed by their own senior foreman, Raza Mohammad, who has categorically stated that the work…
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