| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 1878 1984 SLD 1878 1984 PLC 1429 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-771 of 1978, decided on 25th April, 1982.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. LHR-771 of 1978, decided on 25th April, 1982.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY, LAHORE
VS
SHAN MUHAMMAD
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V I of 1968)--- -- S. O. 15 (3) (n)-Abusing during working hours at establishment---Held, a disorderly behaviour and an act subversise of discipline and as a misconduct. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---- -- S. O. 15 (4)--Service of second show-cause notice-Held, necessary only in cases where extraneous matter comes on record and it is considered necessary to bring it to notice of employer before passing order of punishment. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant. Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision, dated 19th July, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re-instatement was accepted with full back benefits. 2. Shan Muhammad, respondent, was helper Furnace Man. He was charge-sheeted for abusing Taj Din Mistri and refused to carry out his order. After holding at enquiry he was dismissed from service vide order, copy of which is Exh. P. 5. The lower Court has reinstated the respondent only on the solitary ground that no second show-cause notice was given to him. The learned counsel argued that Taj Din Mistri was not the incharge of the respondent, therefore, refusal on the part of the respondent to obey the order of Taj Din did not amount to misconduct. He has also argued that giving of second show-cause notice was necessary. This is true that there is nothing on the record to show that Tai Din was the boss or the incharge of the…
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