Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOHAMMAD ALI AND 2 OTHERS VS Respondent: MESSRS CHHOTANI GARMENTS INDUSTHES, KARACHI AND ANOTHERHonorable Justice Ghulam Rasool Shaikh
1977 P L C 404
1977 P L C 404
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]
Present: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal
MOHAMMAD ALI AND 2 OTHERS
Versus
MESSRS CHHOTANI GARMENTS INDUSTHES, KARACHI AND ANOTHER
Appeals Nos. KAR‑146, 147 and 148 of 1976, decided on 13th December 1976.
Industrial dispute‑‑
-----Dismissal‑Workers resorting to illegal strike‑Charge‑sheets not having been served personally displayed on notice board and also published in newspaper‑Accused workers not appearing and in ex parte enquiry held by Management found guilty and dismissed from service‑Such dismissals, held, cannot be taken exception to.
S. Safdar Hussain for Appellants.
Masud Mirza for Respondents.
DECISION
The applications under section 25‑A of I. R. O. were dismissed on three grounds ; that the applications were time‑barred, since the number of workers employed by the Respondents were less than 20, the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable and finally they were dismissed from service after charge‑sheet and due inquiry.
2. On perusal of the R & Ps, I find no force in these appeals.
3. The appellants had resorted to an illegal strike and, therefore, they were charge‑sheeted but the charge‑sheets could not be served personally and, therefore, the same were displayed on the Notice Board and published in the newspaper. The appellants did not appear and ex parte inquiry were held. They were found guilty and dismissed from service. No exception can be taken to the ex parse inquiry.
So far the limitation is concerned, the appellants submitted their grievance petitions on 24‑10‑1974 and reply was sent by registered post to them on 1‑11‑1974 but the appellants refused to receive the letter. The appellants had to file the applications in the Labour Court under section 25‑A of I. R. O. within two months, that is, by 1‑1‑1975 but it was filed on 7‑1‑1975 without any application for condonation of delay. Thus, it was rightly held by the Labour Court that the applications were time‑barred.
5. Lastly, it was not proved that the respondents employed 20 or more persons, therefore, the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable.
6. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.