Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2461 1986 SLD 2461 1986 PLC 1133
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-56 of 1985, decided on 23rd July, 1985.
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

I.C.I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURERS LTD. (POLYESTER WORKS), SHEIKHUPURA

VS

MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AHMAD

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.O. 15(4)--Multiple charges--Dismissal for misconduct--Accused charged for raising slogans, participating in a procession and blocking road for movement of van carrying management staff--Enquiry Officer giving benefit of doubt about allegation of raising slogans and exonerating accused therefrom--Dismissal order passed on basis of all charges notwithstanding findings of enquiry--Taking out mere procession not amounting to misconduct--No allegation of causing damage to property-­Allegation of blocking road against company van established-Dismissal order based upon all charges, in circumstances, held, not sustainable. 1981 P L C 984 rel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 2(xxviii)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)--Workman--Supervisor purchases--Controlling a typist/clerk--Salary more than Rs.800 p.m.-­Main duty to get quotations by visiting market and comparing rates-­Typing of statements casually done in absence of typist and going to market would not be a manual work--Preparation of comparative statement was ancillary work--Employer doing such ancillary work, held, was not a workman. Shahid Hamid for Appellant. Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th July, 1985. JUDGMENT The decision dated 6-1-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. 2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service after being charge-sheeted and holding an inquiry against him are that he participated in a procession in which he raised slogans and that he blocked the road and movement of the coach which was carrying the staff of the management. The Inquiry Officer gave the respondent benefit of doubt so far as the allegation of raising slogans is concerned since in the evidence it was not said what were the slogans; but found him guilty of participating in the procession and blocking the road to prevent the…
🔒
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