Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 1971 1986 SLD 1971 1986 PLC 232
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. l of 1985, decided on 22nd September, 1985.
A., J. BACHANI, 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

SHAHEEN AIRPORT SERVICES, KARACHI

VS

UMER REHMAN

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 47(2)--Dismissal of office-bearer of trade union for misconduct during pendency of industrial dispute--Permission of Labour Court-­Guiding requirements for Labour Court (1) Whether there is prima facie case. (2) Whether proper opportunity of defense given. (3) Whether there was victimisation. (4) Whether there was contravention of law or rules of natural justice--Domestic enquiry indicating that after statement of accused giving impression that it was admission of guilt no opportunity given to have idea of victimisation and mala fide proved--Domestic enquiry, in circumstances, held, suffered from contravention of requirement of natural justice--Permission fir dismissal, in circumstances, refused. 1978 P L C 523 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 47(2)--Punishment of office-bearer of trade union during pendency of industrial dispute--Permission of Court--Scope of S. 47 limited to extent of completing disciplinary proceedings--Nature of punishment, discharge, dismissal or any other punishment subject to judicial review under S. 25-A--Question that allegation did not amount to misconduct calling for dismissal and that authority taking' action was not competent, _held, could not be taken up in proceedings under S. 47. P L D 1978 239 and 1971 P L C 255 ref. Samiullah Khan, Representative for Applicant. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Respondent. ORDER Permission is sought from the Labour Court under subsection (2) section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by the Shaheen Airport for taking disciplinary proceedings against the respondent who has been held guilty of misconduct, that respondent was deputed for GUP at the Airport who after installing at the Gulf Aircraft left GUP unattended, which was driven by Sardar Ahmed driver. 2. Respondent has contended that he had left for prayers at 1-30 p.m. It was, therefore, not a misconduct. He has also taken an exception to the remarks of Mr. Peter which caused him prejudice. 3. Section 4' has created a bar, that no employer will discharge, punish or dismiss the employee during the pendency of an dispute, unless the misconduct is such…
🔒
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