Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1667 1989 SLD 1667 1989 PLC 951
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-224 of 1986, decided on 7th June, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL .
Muhammad Azam for Appellant. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for
Respondent.

ITTEHAD CHEMICALS

VS

Rana MUKHATAR AHMAD

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V1 of 1968)-- ---S.O. 12(3)--Termination simpliciter--Explicit reasons must be recorded in termination order--Order mentioning "services no longer required" without containing explicit reasons, held, would be violative of provisions of S.O. 12(3) and thus not maintainable. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (Vl of 1968)-- ---S.O. 15(3)--Misconduct--Absence from duty on one occasion, does not amount to misconduct--Penalty of termination of service on such allegation, held, was illegal. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 2(xxviii), Exception (b)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)--"Workman"-­Employee supervising work clone by labour engaged by contractor and not of any worker of establishment--Exercising no control over such employees of contractor regarding their leave, promotions or disciplinary action--Making measurement of work done by contractor's employees--Held, not ousted from definition of workman under S. 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and that making measurements being a manual work such employee was a workman as defined in S.2(i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. 1984 P L C 1303; 1984 P L C 1105 and 1986 S C 103 distinguished. JUDGMENT This is an appeal challenging the decision dateddi19-3-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service has been accepted and he has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. . 2. The services of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 17-11-1980 on the ground that they were no longer required. He was offered one month's pay in lieu of notice. Prior to that a show-cause notice, copy of which is A Exh. P.2, \vas served upon the respondent complaining that 11 K.V. electric cable underground was damaged by the labourers, resulting in damage of two electric control panels 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