Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1601 1991 SLD 1601 1991 PLC 589
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-107 of 1987, decision dated: 29-11-1990.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, 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

Messrs GHULAM HUSSAIN HIDAYATULLAH TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.

VS

MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---Grievance notice---Services of employee were terminated orally without assigning any reason---Employee stated that he served employer with grievance notice which was not received by it---Employer, however, stated that employee had himself submitted resignation---Employee had denied his signature thereon---Employer, however, did not examine any witness who could state that employee had signed resignation in his presence nor he got the disputed signature examined by expert---Employee also denied to have received letter intimating that his resignation had been accepted---Employer had denied to have received grievance notice but when later on postman was examined he admitted receipt of the notice---Originally copy of notice was received by employer who had not produced the same to show whether it was signed or not signed by employee---Order of reinstatement of employee was maintained in circumstances. Muhammad Din v. Heavy Foundry and Forge Limited, Taxila 1980 P L C 1983 ref. Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hashim 1981 P L C 55 and Toor Gul v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum P L D 1972 S C 9 rel. Raes Muhammad Mushtaq for Appellants. Bashir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1990. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No., VI at Hyderabad, dated 25-3-1987; whereby the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. 2. I have heard Mr. Raes Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 3. Admittedly the respondent was a workman employed with the appellants. The grievance of the respondent is that his services were terminated orally on 1-8-1956, without assigning any reasons and therefore, he served a grievance notice which was not replied by the appellants. He consequently filed grievance petition which was resisted by the appellants on the ground that no grievance notice was received by them and that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service. 4. The appellants have…
🔒
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