| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1745 2000 SLD 1745 2000 PLC 221 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal NOXAR 406 of 1997, decision dated: 11-02-1999
DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal NOXAR 406 of 1997, decision dated: 11-02-1999
DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
KHUDADAD
VS
Messrs MUHAMMAD EBRAHIM & CO. (PVT.) LTD
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 25A
Law: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)
Section: 1(4),S.O.13
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25 A West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 13 Retrenchment Employer had to make retrenchment of staff including employee on basis of last come, first go due to tight position of stringency and reduction in production Retrenched employee had contended that person junior to him had been retained by employer whereas he being senior had been retrenched Contention of employee was misconceived because retained person though was junior to employee, but he belonged to category of employees different to employee. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) S. 1(4) & S. O. 13 Retrenchment Number of employees in employer company at time of retrenchment consisted of thirty to thirty five whereas maximum number required at that time was forty nine West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not applicable in the matter. JUDGMENT This is an appeal arising out of a decision dated 18 11 1997 passed by the learned Labour Court No.2, Karachi on Grievance Application bearing No.224 of 1994 for reinstatement with back benefits which was dismissed by the learned Labour Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that although the respondent filed three balance sheets of their accounts for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 alongwith the Auditors Report but they have failed to produce the Auditor Book. In reply learned counsel for the respondent submits that no exception was taken to the said Reports by the appellant. This reply seems to be incorrect in view of the cross examination made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents attached with the reply statement are fabricated. The respondent thereupon made an application for summoning the Auditors but by consent it was agreed by both the parties that the last Report of the Auditors may be taken on record. In view of this admitted position the objection does not carry any weight. The…
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