Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2475 1986 SLD 2475 1986 PLC 1151
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. ED-307 of 1986, decided on 22nd June, 1986.
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

HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS Ltd., JARANWALA

VS

DILDAR AHMAD

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---- ---S. 2(1)(e)--Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 9(1)(c)-Employer classification of--Only such person, held, could be employer who was declared as such under S. 9(1)(e) of Factories Act as provided by S 2 of Ordinance VI of 1968. (b) Factories Act (XXV of 1934)--- ---S.9--Factory Manager, status of--When a factory starts, a Factory Manager has toy be declared--Such Factory Manager, held, would be deemed to be employer after such declaration and could take action for any misconduct. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---Grievance petition--Fresh inquiry after filing off appeal-­Effect--By merely starting an enquiry, appellant, held, would not be debarred from exercising right of appeal--However; if Establishment takes any action against employee as result ' of fresh inquiry, appeal filed by such person would become infructuous. Naeem Bukhari for Appellant. Munswar Ahmad Javaid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1986. JUDGMENT The decision dated 12-4-1986, recorded by learned Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re-instatement in service was allowed on a technical ground allowing fresh enquiry. It was directed that question of past benefits would depend upon the result of fresh enquiry. The technical defect according to the learned lower Court was that the dismissal order was passed by the Technical Director of the Mills whereas Mr. Rauf had been declared as Factory Manager and was thus, employer according to section 2(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned lower Court has wrongly held that sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-clause (c) of section 2 Standing Orders Ordinance is independent of each other. He has also argued that the learned lower Court wrongly relied upon P L D 1981 Kar. 35. The line of argument of the learned counsel is that as according to the definition of industrial establishment a factory is industrial establishment, every factory would be an industrial establishment and…
🔒
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