Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1571 2001 SLD 1571 2001 PLC 230
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal NOXAR 327 of 1999, decision dated: 8-11-2000, hearing DATE : 2-11-2000
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, 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

BACHA KHAN

VS

MANAGER/OCCUPIER GUL AHMED CLOTH MILLS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25 A Grievance petition Maintainability Service of grievance notice on employer before filing grievance petition being mandatory under S.25 A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, grievance petition filed by employee against termination of his service without first serving grievance notice on employer, was not maintainable. 2000 PLC 166 and 1975 PLC 196 ref. DECISION Aggrieved by the order, dated 29th November, 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant, Bacha Khan was dismissed, the said Bacha Khan has preferred this appeal. His case, as disclosed in his grievance petition, is that he was employed as permanent worker in the Respondents Mill with effect from 2 5 1992. However, on 28 11 1993 his services were terminated verbally without assigning any reason. Neither any charge sheet was served on him nor any enquiry, was held against him before termination of his services. The appellant served a grievance notice, dated 9 12 1993 on the respondents (Annexure A lower Court's file). In their reply, dated 12 12 1993 to the said notice, the respondents denied the, termination of appellant's services on 28 11 1993, adding further that the appellant was charge sheeted on 28 11 1993 for an incident of prior date i.e. 27- 11 1993. As he did not turn up for duty consecutively for two days i.e. 28 11 1993 and 29 I 1 1993, the charge sheet was sent to him by Registered Post both on his Karachi address and his home address in Sawat. However, the charge sheet sent on Karachi address was returned undelivered and the Respondents kept waiting for the reply to the charge sheet sent on his home address. 2. The appellant had denied having received any such charge sheet. According to him on receipt of the respondent's letter, dated 12 12 1993 he went to the Mill for resuming his duties but he was not allowed by Labour Officer to enter the premises. Therefore, according to him, the said letter as well as the letter, dated 19 12 1993 containing, false allegations of the appellant's unauthorized absence and the written order of his dismissal, dated 17 1 1994 were all issued to cover up…
🔒
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