| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1192 1992 SLD 1192 1992 PLC 1237 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-230 of 1991, decided on 3rd March, 1992.
AGHA ALI HYDER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-230 of 1991, decided on 3rd March, 1992.
AGHA ALI HYDER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
1992 P L C 1237 Messrs CYANAMID (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI
VS
MUSARRAT GUL and another 1992 P L C 1237 Messrs CYANAMID (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs MUSARRAT GUL and another
Law:
Section:
Industrial, Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ----S. 25-A---Termination of service---Services of permanent workman although could be dispensed with under law, yet where there was a colourable exercise of powers, there being no proof that even letter of termination had been duly served on him, such termination would be of no effect---Labour Court having decided grievance petition correctly and fairly by ordering reinstatement of workman, no interference was warranted therewith. Muhammad Humayun for Appellant. Khadim Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1992. DECISION The circumstances forming the background of this appeal against the order of the reinstatement made by the Labour Court are as follows: 1. The respondent was appointed as a watchman on 1-10-1985 and his services came to be terminated on the 17th of April, 1988 on the ground that the post of the watchman at the residence of the Managing Director had been decided to be abolished. The respondent had made a representation, but finding no satisfaction had followed it up by a grievance notice which also was not replied to, with the result that grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court. 2. The allegation of the application came to be denied in the Written Reply. It was further alleged that the respondent was not a workman and it went on to say that the letter of termination had been given by hand but the respondent had declined to accept the same. It was therefore sent by registered post and had been duly received by him as would be borne out from the Acknowledgement Due Card. 3. The respondent had duly appeared as his own witness, while there were two witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant namely Abid Hussain Khan, the Personnel Officer and Arshad Hassan, Manager Administration. 4. The Labour Court found the issues in regard to the status of the respondent and whether the termination was mala fide in favour of the respondent, and ordered reinstatement. 5. The case set up by the respondent even before the termination of his service was that on the night of the 8th of April he did not report for his duty as his mother had fallen ill. The next day when he had gone toβ¦
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