Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1991 PLC 859

METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES vs Raja HASSAN AKHTAR

Citation1991 PLC 859
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No, KAR-116 of 1991
Date1991-05-02
Judge(s)Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi
ResultAppeal dismissed

DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Labour Court No, III at Karachi dated 21-2-1991 whereby the grievance application of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. I have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmed for the appellant and have also gone through the relevant papers.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent admittedly was employed with the appellant.

On 12-6-1990 the appellant served respondent with the termination order which may be reproduced as under:- "As observed you are working in betrayal of confidence and you are not sincere to your employer.

In the above circumstances, your services are terminated to the interest of this management.

Faced with the above situation and as a consequence of the exercise of power as conferred by Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)

Ordinance, 1968, your services are herewith terminated with immediate effect, without any allegation and stigma."

3-A. Mr. Wasi Ahmed contends that the termination of the respondent was termination simpliciter but the perusal of the termination order would show otherwise. It clearly shows that his services had been terminated because of misconduct as he was betraying confidence of the employer and was not fair to the employer. The learned Labour Court has also referred to admission of witness of the appellant to the effect that services of the respondent were terminated because the respondent had raised speed of machine in order to increase the production but the heating system was not in accordance with the speed, resulting in manufacturing of defective color.

4. The termination order and the admission of the witness of the appellant leaves no room for doubt that the termination of the respondent was not termination simpliciter but was termination due to misconduct for which the procedure provided under Standing Order 15(4) was not resorted to by the appellant.

5. In view of the above position, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch