| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 2141 1986 SLD 2141 1986 PLC 530 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 23 of 1984, decided on 13th August, 1985.
GHOUS MUHAMMAD, PRESIDING OFFICER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Application No. 23 of 1984, decided on 13th August, 1985.
GHOUS MUHAMMAD, PRESIDING OFFICER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
HAQ NAWAZ BALOCH
VS
Messrs KARACHI X-RAYS, KARACHI
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4) & S.0.12(3)-Termination of service allegedly wrongful--Establishment proved to not having 20 or more employees at any time--Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 not applicable--Grievance application under S.25-A, in circumstances dismissed as not maintainable. Mirza M. Kazim for Applicant. S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents. ORDER The applicant has filed this grievance petition under Standing Order 12(3) read with section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 wherein he has prayed for reinstatement in service with back benefits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed by the applicant are as follows. 3. That he was employed in the respondent establishment as Radio Grapher (X-Ray Technician) since December, 1981 and continued to perform his work till 30-6-1983. However, due to differences with the management over the issues of overtime wages for 4 hours daily extra work, bonus, annual increment and other benefits, his services were terminated orally on July, 1983. The applicant then served the grievance notice and filed the present petition challenging his termination from service is mala fide and illegal. 4. The case of the respondent in the reply statement is that the applicant is not a workman and the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 are also not attracted in his case because establishment of the respondent has been functioning for the treatment and care of sick and infirm persons. The respondent also alleged that the applicant committed misconduct. and they cited the following instances:-- "The applicant tried to cause damage to a very precious X-Ray Machine while he was working on that machine. The applicant tried to criminally assault a female patient who complained against him to the management. The applicant again tried to criminally assault another female patient who also complained against him to the respondent establishment. That in spite of repeated warnings the applicant did not improve his performance and has always been negligent in the work…
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