| Case ID |
39bdab7c-a655-45ca-a7c8-d7e7663747a9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
KAR-534 of 1979 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 28, 1980 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 28, 1980 |
| Decision |
This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court given on 27th October, 1979, dismissing the grievance application filed service by the appellant workman challenging his dismissal from service. The appellant, a double-sider in the respondent establishment, was dismissed from service effective 3rd March, 1979, based on the Enquiry Officer's report alleging riotous and disorderly behavior and acts subversive of discipline under Standing Order 15. The Fourth Labour Court upheld the dismissal, leading the appellant to appeal to this Tribunal. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the domestic inquiry was flawed due to a vague charge-sheet, improper assistance during the inquiry, lack of recorded witness statements, and perverse findings without evidence. The Tribunal found merit in these claims, noting that the charge-sheet did fulfill necessary requirements but the refusal to allow the nominated assistant was not illegal. However, issues regarding the recording of witness statements and the perverse findings in the enquiry report led to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were defective and invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal orders and directed the reinstatement of the appellant, allowing the respondent to initiate a fresh enquiry from the stage after the service of the charge-sheet. The decision emphasizes the importance of proper procedural conduct in disciplinary inquiries to ensure fairness and justice in employment termination. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case KAR-534 of 1979, adjudicated by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Sindh on January 28, 1980, the appellant, Muhammad Hussain, a double-sider employed by Messrs Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd., challenged his dismissal on grounds of alleged misconduct. Represented by Mirza Mohammad Kazim, the appellant contended that the disciplinary proceedings leading to his termination were fraught with procedural deficiencies, including a vague charge-sheet, lack of proper assistance during the domestic inquiry, and absence of recorded witness testimonies. The respondent, defended by Abdul Hadi Fareed, argued that the established procedures under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance of 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 were duly followed. The Tribunal meticulously examined the adherence to statutory requirements, particularly Section 15(4) of the 1968 Ordinance, which mandates the provision of a clear charge-sheet and the right of the accused to have assistance during inquiries. While the charge-sheet was deemed sufficiently informative, the Tribunal identified critical lapses in the inquiry process, such as the non-recording of witness statements and the Enquiry Officer's biased report, which lacked supporting evidence. Citing precedents like M/s. Sandoz Pakistan Limited v. Saeed Burt, the Tribunal emphasized that procedural irregularities could warrant the invalidation of disciplinary actions. Ultimately, recognizing the perverse findings and the flawed inquiry, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order, directing the reinstatement of Muhammad Hussain and allowing the respondent to conduct a new, fair enquiry. This case underscores the imperative for employers to uphold stringent procedural standards in disciplinary matters to ensure just and equitable treatment of employees. The decision not only reinforces the legal protections afforded to workers under Pakistani labor laws but also serves as a crucial reference for future industrial disputes, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding employment rights and promoting fair labor practices. Keywords such as 'Labour Appellate Tribunal', 'industrial dispute resolution', 'employment termination fairness', 'procedural justice in labor law', and 'Pakistani employment ordinances' are pivotal in this case, ensuring its relevance and accessibility in legal research and discussions on workers' rights and employer responsibilities. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
|
| Entities Involved |
MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
|
| Judges |
Z. A. CHANNA
|
| Lawyers |
Mirza Mohammad Kazim,
Abdul Hadi Fareed
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
|
| Citations |
1981 SLD 2111,
1981 PLC 203
|
| Other Citations |
M/s. Sandoz Pakistan Limited v. Saeed Burt and others
|
| Laws Involved |
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968),
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
|
| Sections |
S.O. 15(4),
S. 25-A
|