| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1988 SLG 1037 1988 SLD 1037 1988 PLC 385 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-21 of 1986, heard on 28th September, 1987
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-21 of 1986, heard on 28th September, 1987
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI
VS
SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.Os. 1(b), 12(5) & 15(4)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Permanent workman--Removal from service for misconduct--Character of being permanent workman was denied stating that employment was of temporary nature--Workman admittedly was issued Bus Pass showing him as a permanent workman--Workman in circumstances, held, was permanent and termination of his services for alleged misconduct without enquiry, held, was not sustainable-Order of Labour Court awarding re-instatement was maintained but back benefits were allowed only to extent of 25%. P L D 1980 S C 323 rel. Munawwar Ghani for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant company against an impunged order, dated 8-1-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits under section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been appointed as Boiler Operator in the appellant establishment and was working as a permanent employee since 11-4-1985 on the assurance that he will be issued a proper appointment letter. However, the respondent claimed that when he did not receive the same his services were terminated on the charge of alleged miscounduct. The respondent claimed that as the alleged charge of miscounduct was not established and the termination was under section 12 (5) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, therefore he submitted a grievance notice and thereafter filed his grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969. 3. The appellant establishment resisted the grievance petition of the respondent before the learned Labour Court on the ground that the respondent was employed on a work of supervision and his emoluments were more than Rs.800 therefore, he did not come within the definition of a workman to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. The appellant establishment further submitted that the…
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