Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute--- ---Domestic enquiry--Accused making admission of alleged misconduct and tendering written apology--Such accused, held, could not subsequently challenge punishment of dismissal from service on plea that enquiry was not held properly. 1987 S C M R 1823 rel. 1980 P L C (C.S.) 984;1982 P L C 798 and 1980 P L C 981 ref, DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants factory against an impugned order, dated 5-4-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to be a permanent workman in the appellants factory to have been employed as a Fitter and was issued a show cause for an alleged charge of habitual absence from duty in the months of October and November, 1985. The respondent further claimed that though he had submitted a satisfactory reply which was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted against him in which the charge was not established, yet, he was dismissed from service. The respondent claimed that being aggrieved, he had sent his grievance, notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25-A,1.R.0. 1969. 3. The appellant factory resisted the petition on the ground that legally the grievance petition was not maintainable and that the respondent was habitual of remaining absent without intimations, he was issued warnings at so many times, but, he did not mend himself and again in the months of October and November, 1985, he had remained absent without intimation, therefore, he was issued a show-cause notice and as his reply thereto was not found satisfactory, therefore, a lawful, proper and reasonable domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he had fully participated and in view of the report of the enquiry officer, he was correctly dismissed from service. So, as per claim of the appellants factory he was not entitled to maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross­-examined.…

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