Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 834 1997 SLD 834 1997 PLC 512
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-28 of 1996, decision dated: 1st September, 1996.
MUSHTAQ ALI QAZI, 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

AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

VS

MUKHTAR HUSSAIN BUKHARI

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)S.O. 12Termination of serviceService of employee was terminated with immediate effect after paying him one month's salary in lieu of notice on ground that post on which employee was working had been abolished due to reorganisation in administrative setupManagement has right to terminate service of employee if termination was bona fide on account of any reorganization under S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968Termination of employee was due to reorganisation in administrative setup and computerisation Termination of about eight other employees including the employee, thus would not be considered to be mala fideOrder terminating service of employee, was valid and legal and could not be interfered with, in circumstances. Gulzar Ahmed for Appellant. Faiz Ghanghro for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st September, 1996. DECISION Respondent Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari was appointed Establishment Assistant on three months probation on a salary of Rs.1,620 per month on 7th September, 1988. After completion of the period of probation the salary was to be increased by gs.180 per month by the employers Ahmed Food Industries. The respondent continued in service until May 13, 1991 when he was served with an order terminating his service with immediate effect. He was to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice. The reason for termination mentioned in the order was that the post of Assistant in the Establishment Department had been abolished due to reorganisation in the administrative setup. 2. The case of Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari is that after his termination another person by name Muhammad Nadeem Siddiqui was appointed and to show that he was not appointed on the swine job a difft;rent job description was given to him, while no job description had been given to respondent Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari. It is, therefore, contended that there was no re­organisation and it was merely an excuse for termination his service and appointing another person in his place. That no resolution of the Board of Directors of Ahmed Food Industries has been…
🔒
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