Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 612 1997 SLD 612 1997 PLC 126
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. SG-59 of 1996 decided on 15-05-1996.
MIAN GHULAM AHMAD CHAIRMAN

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

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION SARGODHA and others

VS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----S. 25-A___West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)SO. (b); & 12; Termination of servicesServices of employee were terminated without issuing him show cause notice, without serving upon him chargesheet and without holding any Departmental Enquiry: against .him 'considering him purely. Temporary employeeFact that service span of employee spread over a period of about five years, would demonstrate that employee was not a temporary worker­ Employee having acquired status of permanent worker; his services could not be terminated in summary fashionOrder terminating services of employee was rightly set aside by Labour Court. L.D.A.v. Muhammad Ashraf 1993 PLC 160 ref: Rana Farman Ali Sabir for Appellants. Mazhar Hakeem for Respondent. Date of hearing 15th May. 1996 JUDGMENT The appeal. Is directed against an order dated 7121995; rendered by the Punjab, Labour Court No.5 Sargodha, accepting the grievance petition filed by Sajjad Hussain under section 25A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969: Learned counsel for: the .parties have preliminarily been heard. 2. It is urged that the respondent was purely a workcharged employee and was governed by the Departmental Rules (West Pakistan B R Code) and as such he could not claim protection as regards his service in the should not plead that any right guaranteed or secured under law award or settlement had been infringed,, entitling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour. Court. The payrolls and, sanction letters, exhibited on the of the lower Court; as R1 to R9 reveal that the respondent had been recruited against purely temporary post and thus length of his service was immaterial. In holding, that he was a permanent workman and his services could not be terminated, except by observance of the requisite rules and formalities, the learned Labour Court has erred in law, it is contended by the learned counsel. 3. I have gone through the impugned decision. The learned Court below, I must say, has recorded elaborate and cogent reasons in upholding the claim of the employee, in turning down the standpoint taken up by…
🔒
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