Pakistan Case Law← Search
1998 PLC 136

PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI through Deputy General

Citation1998 PLC 136
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No. KAR-529 of 1996
Date1997-03-03
Judge(s)Mushtaq Ali Kazi
ResultAppeal dismissed

DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Ramzan, an employee of the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. Muhammad Ramzan had been appointed as a technician in the Steel Mills in 1977. While he was posted at Maikli he fell ill from 28-10-1991 to 5-11-1991. This was regarded as absence for more than 10 days without leave and the respondent was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Order 15(3)

(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. During the enquiry respondent produced Medical Certificate of illness from 28-10-1991 to 5-11-1991. But since he was absent without leave he was found guilty and dismissed from service. The learned Labour Court, however, found that the dismissal order was not justified and he accordingly directed the reinstatement of the respondent upto 8-10-1994 on which date he attained the age of 60 years.

3. Mr. Zahid Hamid for the Steel Mills has argued that the intimation of illness was not given by the respondent in time. He was, therefore, marked absent and being absent for more than 10 days made him liable for the punishment. He does not deny that the absence was on account of illness but the respondent having been posted at Maikli away from Karachi, he could not send the intimation of illness and the Medical Certificate in time. Mr. Zahid Hamid has then argued that the respondent in cross-examination admitted that occasionally he got work for 2 or 3 days in a week and he could earn just Rs,500 to feed his wife and five children. It was not the case of the Steel Mills that during the period the respondent remained out of job but was gainfully employed. Getting work occasionally for 2 or 3 days will not deprive the respondent of the back benefits allowed to him. The respondent has already been retired and I can see no substance in this appeal filed against the old man.

4. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

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