Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 1905 1986 SLD 1905 1986 PLC 103
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 34 of 1984, decided on 22nd September, 1985.
S. NASIR HUSSAIN, JAFRI, PRESIDING OFFICER

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

GHAYASUDDIN KAMALI

VS

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., MIRPURKHAS and another

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S. 2(i)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-­"Workman"--Determination factor--Nature of primary and main duties and not the work which might have to be done incidentally in course of performance of normal duties--Bank Manager holding power-of-attorney controlling a number of subordinates though doing some clerical work necessary or expedient for better or efficient performance--Not a workman--Cannot maintain petition against dismissal from service for misconduct before Labour Court. 1985 S C M R 1511 rel. 1984 P L C 1305; 1982 P L C 132 and 1986 P L C 90 held superseded by 1985 S C M R 1511. S.F.H. Rizvi for Applicant. Muhammad Bashir Awan for Respondents. ORDER The applicant was employed as Grade-III Officer and was said to be performing the duties purely of clerical and manual nature. Accordingly, he claims himself to be covered by the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. While he was posted in the Zonal Office at Mirpurkhas, he was served with a charge-sheet, dated 20-2-1982. It was duly replied and then an enquiry was conducted against him. After the enquiry he was served with a letter of warning on 15-8-1982 and thus the matter was closed for good. Surprisingly the applicant received a final show-cause notice, dated 9-9-1982 in respect of the already closed subject after the lapse of one year. He was dismissed from service by order, dated 24-9-1983. He submitted a departmental appeal and thereafter sent a grievance notice, dated 22-12-1983. Neither his appeal was disposed of nor the grievance notice was replied and so he instituted the present petition 9-2-1984 for his re-instatement with back benefits. This petition it' based on the grounds that the charge-sheet was time-barred; the charges were without any foundation and only based on certain irregularities which did not constitute any misconduct and that, in any case, the proceedings were terminated after service of warning to the applicant. 2. The Bank in its reply statement questioned the maintainability of this petition as also the jurisdiction of this Court on the plea that…
🔒
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