| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1515 1990 SLD 1515 1990 PLC 693 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. MN-128 of 1989/Pb., decided on 28th June, 1989.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gilani for Appellants. M.R. Haider for
Respondent.
Appeal No. MN-128 of 1989/Pb., decided on 28th June, 1989.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gilani for Appellants. M.R. Haider for
Respondent.
DIRECTOR, THAL JUTE MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGHAR and others
VS
BARJEES QADIR ALI KHAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)---Termination of service---Explicit reason for termination of service has to be given in the order---Mere reason "service no longer required" cannot by any stretch of imagination, be taken to be explicit reason. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12---Removal from service---Some amount paid to workman as ex gratia, held, would not estop workman from. challenging order of his removal from service though receiving of benefits like gratuity and encashment of leave account which cannot be paid during subsistence of service, may estop workman from challenging order of his termination. (c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S. 2(i)---Workman---No evidence available to the effect that it was employee's duty to sanction or recommend leave or recommend annual increment or make report against other employees---In absence of any such evidence of supervisory duties of employees it could not be said that employee was not a workman--Merely because employee used to check work done by a person, it could not be said that employee was doing supervisory duties. (d) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 38---Employer did not raise objection before Trial Court that employee was not "workman'---Question whether' employee was a "workman" being a question of fact could not be raised at appellate stage. JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 12-1-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted directing his reinstatement in service without back benefits, if the respondent refunds the amount of ex gratia received by him at the time of termination of his services. 2. The ground given for the termination of service is `no longer required'. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to 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