Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 609 1988 SLD 609 1988 PLC 342
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-22 of 1985, decided o
ALI NAMAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Khalid Mansur Alam for Appellant. S.P.Lodhi for
Respondent. Date of hearing. 21st July, 1987.n 28th July, 1987.

PAKISTAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI

VS

SHABBIR HUSSAIN

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.0.12(3)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25-A--Termination of service--Explicit reason--Services "no longer required", not a sufficient reason--No proof that post was not in existence--Termination order stating that "services no longer required", held, was illegal and void--Limitation for grievance petition against such void order, held, was not applicable. (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"--Foreman in Pakistan Steel Corporation, operating and maintaining equipment physically--Such employee neither incharge of any section nor supervisor, held, was a workman and criteria of emoluments in large establishment was of no importance. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation, Messrs Pakistan Steel Corporation Ltd., Karachi against an impugned order dated 8-12-1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.0.1969, directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed, to be a permanent workman in the appellant-Corporation, appointed on 29-1-1981 as Electrical Foreman and according to him was performing the duties of manual nature and was operating electrical assignment and their maintenance with the help of Switch Board Attendant only at Jhampir Dolomite Project. That, all of a sudden, a dispute arose between the Incharge Officer and him on the issues of quantity, quality and supply of material, therefore, the Officer Incharge was annoyed with him and on account of revenge, his services were terminated, without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved of this unlawful action of the appellant-Corporation, the respondent, after complying with the requirements, had submitted a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court. 3. The appellant-Corporation resisted the petition, raising two-fold legal…
🔒
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