Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 1096 1987 SLD 1096 1987 PLC 285
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-109 of 1985. heard on 7th April, 1986.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, 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

SULTAN JAVED

VS

Messrs GESTETNER LTD. KARACHI

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ---Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Workman--Designation, held was not a criteria for determination of status of an employee but nature of duties which were performed by him were to be considered--Employee working as Head Technician though no documents were shown that any person was subordinate to him as technician or he was working in capacity of supervisor--Such employee, held, was a workman entitled to file grievance petition. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ---S.O. 15--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-­Dismissal from service--Unauthorized absence from duty--Fact that workman remained absent from duty for more than ten days without any authority or sanction of leave stood proved against him and he was found guilty and dismissed--Workman's misconception that leave was granted to him prompted Labour Appellate Tribunal to recommend that his dismissal be converted to termination of service simpliciter. Syed Farahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986. DECISION The grievance petition of Sultan Javed was dismissed on 12-3-1985 by the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad. This is an appeal against the said impugned order. 2. The facts which emanate from the grievance petition are that Sultan Javed was serving for the last 6 years with the respondent establishment. He was charge-sheeted on 9-8-1982, on the allegations of his unauthorized absence for more than 10 days from 26-7-1982 to 5-8-1982. He was, therefore, dismissed from service. 3. The appellant, Sultan Javed, pleaded that he was granted privilege leave. The reply statement of the respondent establishment is that the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable due to the fact that the appellant was Head Technician and was having supervisory duties. Further, the respondents stated that the appellant was not permitted any privilege leave but in fact the appellant had remained on unauthorized leave and despite a notice letter, dated 29-7-1982 he did not report for duty nor submitted his reply. Accordingly he…
🔒
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