Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1980 1991 SLD 1980 1991 PLC 914
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. SUK-216 of 1990, decided on 11th May, 1991.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Manzar Alam for Appellant. Sadiq Ansari for
Respondents.

NAZAR MUHAMMAD

VS

GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, UTILITY STORES CORPORATION LTD. ISLAMABAD and 2 others NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, UTILITY STORES CORPORATION LTD. ISLAMABAD and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(xxviii) & 37(4)---Workman---Labour Court found applicant to be workman No appeal or cross-objection having been filed by employer against finding of Labour Court, it would attain finality under S. 37(4) of the Ordinance. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25-A & 35---Grievance petition---Jurisdiction---Workman ~Oho w& alleged to have committed misconduct for which order of termination was passed against him, admittedly was working at place within jurisdiction of Labour Court, at the time of his-termination ---Mere fact that Head Office of employer from where dismissal order was issued, was outside territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court, would not take away jurisdiction of Labour Court in which grievance petition was filed by workman. (c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968).`-- ----S.O.15(4)---Charge-sheet---Earlier charge-sheet with respect to misconduct against workman though was brought to the knowledge of workman within prescribed period of one month, but that charge-sheet was subsequently withdrawn on ground that same was not issued by competent Authority---After withdrawal of earlier charge-sheet, another was issued with regard to same misconduct against workman---After withdrawal of earlier charge-sheet, subsequent charge-sheet issued beyond prescribed period, could not be used for any purpose and it could not be pleaded that subsequent charge-sheet was mere formality and would not be hit by S.O. 15(4) of the Ordinance---Charge-sheet issued to workman admittedly was time-barred and dismissal order against workman based on that charge-sheet, could not sustain 1990 PLC, 2925 and 451. 1989 PLC 225 and 1004; 1987 PLC 638; 1977 PLC 708 and 1980 PLC 620 ref. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1991. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of learned Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 15-10-1990, whereby grievance application of the appellant was dismissed. 2. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alain, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sadiq Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone…
πŸ”’
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