Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 1111 1988 SLD 1111 1988 PLC 487
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. BR-337 of 1987, decided on 8th December, 1987.
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

PARAS TEXTILE MILLS LTD., BAHAWALPUR

VS

Hafiz KHADIM HUSSAIN

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.u.15(2)--industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A & 38(3)--"Misconduct", connotation of--Going out of Factory gate without Pass and returning after half an hour, held, does not amount to misconduct--Going out without pass amounted to violation of rules which was an act of omission not warranting dismissal from service-­Order of Labour Court setting aside dismissal from service on such allegation was upheld by Appellate Tribunal. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1968)-- ---S.2(xxviii), Exception(b)--"Workman"--Ouster from definition of workman--Conditions--Duties should be supervisory and wages should exceed Rs.800 p. m.--Allowance towards high cost of living given or, account of dearness was not of permanent natures and could be discontinued when dearness ends--Amount of wages to be calculated after deducting such allowance. M. Shamshir lqbal Chughtai for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1987. JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 30-9-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. 2. The allegation against the respondent was that he went out of the factory gate without a pass and came back after half an hour. The case of the appellant is that the allegation made against the respondent amounts to misconduct and that he was a supervisor and not a workman, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation made against the respondent amounts to misconduct. The respondent remained absent only for half an hour whereas continuous absence of more than ten days amounts to misconduct. If without getting a pass the respondent went out of the factory, 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