Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 1274 1990 SLD 1274 1990 PLC 128
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-398 of 1988, decided on 17th August, 1989,
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ch. Rashid Ahmed for Appellants. IbneAyub, Representative for
Respondent.

Messrs NAGARIA TEXTILE MILLS (Pvt.) Limited

VS

ZAR JAMIL Messrs NAGARIA TEXTILE MILLS (Pvt.) Limited vs ZAR JAMIL

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.12(3)--Termination of workman--Re­instatement of--Order of termination of workman in writing showing reason of his termination, has to be served upon and supplied to workman--Workman was terminated on ground of becoming surplus, but termination order was not sent to him through Registered Post after his refusal to accept same--Findings of Labour Court that no termination order in writing as required under S.O. 12(3) was passed by employer when workman was removed from service and consequently order of reinstatement passed by Labour Court could not be interfered with. DECISION This is an appeal against the order, dated 7-11-1988, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, whereby he-ordered the reinstatement of the respondent within seven days with full back benefits. 2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ibne-Ayub, representative for the respondent and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 3. Admittedly the respondent was employee of the appellants since 18-6-1983. Admittedly prior to the termination under dispute the respondent was removed from service twice but was reinstated under orders of the Labour Court. Last time he was reinstated on 25-1-1987. Admittedly his services were terminated on 3-12-1987. According to the appellants the services of the respondent were terminated because they had given away their Weaving Department/Section on contract and therefore respondent had become surplus. It is further alleged by the appellants that the order of termination is in writing showing reason of termination which order they had tried to serve upon the respondent who refused to accept the same and therefore such endorsement on the termination order was made in presence of two witnesses namely Mohammad Saleem and Mohammad Ashraf. However the respondent denies to have received any order of termination of service in writing. The respondent approached the Labour Department but failing to get redress he after serving grievance…
🔒
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