Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS Respondent: RIAZUDDIN
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi Title: MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED vs RIAZUDDIN Case No.: Appeal No, HYD-355 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1991-01-20 Reported As: 1992 PLC 759 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad, dated 31-8-1989; whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. 2. I have heard Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 3. The respondent was charge-sheeted on 5-12-1987 for remaining absent without intimation from 20-11-1987 to date viz., for more than 10 days. However, his services were terminated vide order, dated 20-1-1988, for being habitual absentee. 4. Apparently, the respondent was dismissed from service on a charge which was not brought to his notice and for which he was not charge-sheeted. Standing Order 15 (4) of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, bans the dismissal of any workman unless the alleged act of misconduct has been brought to his notice. In the instant case, the alleged act of misconduct viz., being in the habit of remaining absent was never brought to the notice of the respondent and as such the impugned order of termination from service was not tenable and has rightly been set aside by the learned Labour Court. I see no merits in this appeal and would dismiss the same.