Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1424 1984 SLD 1424 1984 PLC 792
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos. ID-583 and 584 of 1982, decided on 13th June, 1983.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, 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

SALEEM SAJID RIZVI AND ANOTHER

VS

PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial -and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -- S. 12 (3)-Termination of service-Reason-"Services no longer required"-Not sufficient even in case of temporary employee unless post has ceased and such fact is specifically asserted-Impugned order stating that "services no longer required"-No indication that post had ceased-Termination order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding reinstate neat with 50% back benefits--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellants. Ali Sibtain Fazli for Respondent. Date of hearing : 5th June, 1983. points involved in the two appeals captioned involved the facts and law above are common, both the appeals are being disposed of together through this single , in which Saleem Sajtd Rizvi will be described as appellant No. 1 and Afsar Zaidi as appellant No. 2. 2. Appellant No. 1 was appellant No. 2 was taken in service on 16th June, 1980. Both of them were terminated on 29th January. 1981, No appointment orders of the two appellants have been brought on the record. According to the appellants, they were orally terminated and that the written orders were prepared afterwards but according to the respondent, the appellants were terminated means of written orders dated 28th January, 1981, copy of which has already been brought on the record. The ground given for termination is "service is no longer required". In the termination order Exh. R-3 both the appellants are mentioned as temporary work-charged employees. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited 1977 P L C 695 in support of his arguments that order of termination in writing is necessary. There is no denying the fact that according to Standing Order 12 (3)written order of termination is necessary, but it cannot be said that in the written order present case there is no written order. Firstly, there is no force in the argument that order of termination Exh. R-3 was passed afterwards and secondly even if it was so, the termination would take effect from the date of the order made in writing. It has not been shown when this order was actually prepared. It…
πŸ”’
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