Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1547 1985 SLD 1547 1985 PLC 86
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. RI/44 of 1978, decided on 8th March, 1982.
SARDAR 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

Miss FARKHUNDA AKHTAR

VS

THE PROPRIETOR, UMER SONS LABORATORIES, ISLAMABAD

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.Os.12 & 11.A--Termination of services due to lawful closure of establishment--Allegations of victimization or mala fide intention not established--Termination order upheld by Tribunal. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Naeem Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 26-12-1977 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for her reinstatement was dismissed. 2. The appellant was employed as Incharge Strip Machine in the respondent Laboratories. Her services were terminated on 14-9-1976 for the reason of non-availability of raw material, refusal of the Government to renew drug manufacturing licence and restrictions placed by the Government in the sale of drugs through hawkers and paddlers. The pleas .on which the appellant challenged the order of her termination were that the order was mala fide, that the appellant was an officer of the trade union, thus she could not be terminated during the pendency of the industrial dispute in violation of the provisions of section 47, that the order of her termination amounted to victimization due to her trade union activities and that the employees junior to her were retained in service. Manzoor Elahi appeared as P.W. 1 in support of the case of the appellant and stated that she was the Treasurer of the Union. However, no documentary evidence was produced, that actually she was office-holder of the Union. Exh. P.3 is the list of the members of the Union which does not show that the appellant was holding any post in the Union. There is absolutely no evidence about the allegation that her termination was mala fide or that she was terminated by way of victimization on account of any her trade union activities. Since the appellant was not as office-holder, only, subsection (i) of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 needs discussion. Taking of permission under section 47 during the pendency of the industrial dispute is necessary, if for any misconduct a…
🔒
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