Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 852 1988 SLD 852 1988 PLC 90
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. Kar-32 of 1986, decided on 11th May, 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

Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL C0. LTD. KARACHI

VS

WAHEEDUDDIN

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss.25-A & 38(3)--Dismissal for charge of theft--Allegation of theft against respondent workman not established in domestic enquiry-­Impugned order directing re-instatement of respondent, found to be well-reasoned, maintained and appeal dismissed--Respondent directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits forthwith. Muhammad Humayoon for Appellant. Makhdoom Ali Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants, Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., Karachi against an impugned order dated 8-1-1986, passed by Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1.969, directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19-2-1984, the appellant establishment issued a show-cause notice to the respondent for an 601leged misconduct, namely theft of petroleum. As his reply to the charge-sheet was found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held against resulting in his dismissal from service on 17-5-1984. Thereafter, the appellant after compliance of the requirements of the Law had filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. 3. The appellant establishment had resisted the petition on the ground that the respondent was found guilty of a theft by the enquiry officer in a properly and lawfully held domestic enquiry in which he was given full opportunities to defend himself, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service and so no right, guaranteed or secured, had accrued to him to maintain his application under section 25-A, I. R. O. 1969, which was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent hence this, appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record 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