| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 1078 1989 SLD 1078 1989 PLC 62 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-117 of 1986, decided on 14th March, 1988.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant. Muneeb Ahmad Khan for
Respondent.
Appeal No. KAR-117 of 1986, decided on 14th March, 1988.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant. Muneeb Ahmad Khan for
Respondent.
Messrs BURMAH OIL MILLS LTD.
VS
ABDUL KHALIQ
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- ---S.O.15(4)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)-Dismissal for misconduct--Charge-sheet without mentioning exact and correct date of cause of action or commission of alleged misconduct not legally maintainable--Domestic enquiry not fair but influenced by management--Order of Labour Court setting aside dismissal order and awarding reinstatement with full back benefits maintained in appeal. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants establishment against an impugned order dated 19-4-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent tinder section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to be at permanent workman in the appellants establishment and that on 11-6-1983, he was issued a false, fabricated and dictated by the Union of the establishment, charge-sheet alleging therein that he was not only an habitual absentee, late comer, but, also insubordinate in nature. The respondent further claimed that though he had satisfactorily replied to this charge-sheet taking a defence that he was punctual in attending the duty, having unblemished service record, therefore, he was being victimized at the behest of the Union as he had enmity with the General Secretary of the same: but, an improper, biased, partial, dictated and unfair domestic enquiry was managed to be conducted against him, thus, Finding him preplanned guilty of the misconduct followed by his dismissal from service. So, the respondent had claim, -d that being aggrieved he had served his grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court. 3. The appellants establishment resisted the petition on legal objection that the grievance petition being hopelessly time-barred, it was not legally maintainable, and also on merits of the case, it was resisted that as the alleges charge of misconduct was fully established in a proper, lawful and fair…
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