Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1432 1989 SLD 1432 1989 PLC 610
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No.FD-427 of 1988, decided on 25th January, 1989.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Mian Khurshid Ahmad for Appellants. MA.Javed for
Respondent.

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and another

VS

MUHAMMAD SAEED JAVED

Law:

Section:

(a) National Bank of Pakistan (Start) Service Rules, 1980-- ---R.15(2)--Termination of service of confirmed employee--Reasons to be given in termination order--Termination Order not mentioning reasons, held, was not maintainable. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss.25-A, 37 & 38(3)--Appeal is competent against decisions of Labour Court on petitions under Ss.25-A & 34--Order of Labour Court allowing restoration of petition under S.25-A dismissed in default does not tantamount to a decision on petition under S.25-A and is not appealable. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 3-7-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Sargodha, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with all back benefits, and the order dated 31-1-1988, whereby the grievance petition dismissed in default was restored. 2. The facts are that the services of the respondent were terminated on the offer of three months' pay in lieu of notice vide order dated 24-4-1985 under rule 15(2) of the Staff Service Rules. The respondent had twenty-two years' service on his back. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that giving of reasons was not necessary as there is no such provision in the relevant rule referred to above. Much stress has been laid on the point that the respondent is not covered by the definition of workman. The line of argument of the learned counsel is that the respondent was an employer as he used to pass cheques. The said cheques are Exhs.R-5 to R-19. As regard back benefits the learned counsel has argued that the evidence of RW-3 was not rebutted who said that the appellant was working since the date of his termination in General Insurance Company and Pakistan Insurance Company. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the very appeal is incompetent as it is not signed by the Regional Head namely Muhammad Yar Dona, whereas the appellants are President and Senior Executive Vice-President, Administration Division, Head Office. Name of the signatory of the appeal is not given but they tally with the signatures appearing…
🔒
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