Pakistan Case Law← Search
1996 PLC 538

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another vs FARAN SUGAR MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD

Citation1996 PLC 538
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No, HYD-222 of 1995
Date1996-03-26
Judge(s)Mushtaq Ali Kazi
ResultAppeal dismissed

DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of Vlth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad dismissing the grievance petition of the two appellants for their reinstatement in service.

2. The appellants Muhammad Rafique Wasan and Niaz Hussain Sheedi were workmen in Faran Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan. They were members of the C.B.A. Union. It was their habit to go to the officers of the Sugar Mills become rudy and commit serious acts of indiscipline by even beating the officers. The present case was also for acts subversive of discipline and riotous and disorderly behaviour with the Technical Manager. The appellants were charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry was held. They were found guilty and dismissed under Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. During this dispute the appellants rushed up to N.I.R.C. And complained against the management but their application was dismissed by the N.I.R.C.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Wahid Bux, Representative that the appellants were not allowed to remain present during the enquiry proceedings and there were four charge-sheets which were discussed and they were convicted only in respect of one charge-sheet.

4. Mr. Raees M. Mushtaque for the Faran Sugar Mills has on the other hand stated that there was only one charge-sheet regarding their misbehaviour though it was also mentioned that in the past too they had been guilty of such conduct and they were in the habit of rudyism and misbehaviour.

That in this case they had even beaten the officers and committed serious acts of indiscipline.

5. The learned Labour Court in a detailed judgment covering 17 pages found that the appellants had rightly been dismissed on account of their misconduct and I can find no ground to interfere with the well-considered decision of the lower Court.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search