Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 997 1984 SLD 997 1984 PLC 50
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-283 of 1983, decided on 14th April, 1983.
ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. C.J. AND SALEEM AKHTAR, J

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

NAEEM HASAN

VS

FOURTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND 2OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- - Ss. 25-A & 38(3)-Grievance petition against dismissal from -service on account of misconduct-Domestic enquiry impartial and fair-Concurrent finding of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal that alleged misconduct established and both unanimous on such questions of fact-No indication that findings not based on evidence or any material evidence excluded from consideration ­Interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, in circum­stances, refused by High Court-Constitutional jurisdiction-Pro­visional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner. ORDER SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was employed as a Cook in the Catering Department of respondent No. 3. A show cause notice was served on the petitioner alleging that during the year 1981 he had remained absent on 13 occasions. On demand particulars of the dates were supplied to him. He pleaded that from 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981 he was absent due to sickness and death of his infant daughter for which leave was granted to him on 28th January, 1981 and for the remaining period he was present but his card was either not punched or the punching of the card was missed. This explanation was not considered satisfactory and an enquiry was ordered which was held by Mr. Mecklai an Officer of the res­pondent No. 3. The statements of the witnesses of respondent No. 3 were recorded besides the statement of the petitioner. The witnesses of the respondent No. 3 supported the case of the respondent No. 3 except that from 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981 the petitioner was on leave. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent No. 3. The charge of habitual absence from duty except for the aforestated three days was established, and by an order dated 20th February, 1982 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner filed application challenging the order before the learned IVth Labour Court which was dismissed on 17th January, 198-°. It was held that misconduct of the petitioner has been…
🔒
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