Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Application No. 2 of 1972, decided on 19th May 1972.
S. O. ‑15 ‑‑ Termination of service for misconduct‑Failure to adopt procedure prescribed in S. O. 15‑No charge‑sheet served and no dues paid‑Action, held, illegal and workman directed to be re‑instated with full back benefits.
Abdullah Baluch for Applicant.
Nemo for Respondent.
.‑In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks re‑instatement in service sad payment of legal dues from the respondent.
The applicant's case is that he was a permanent employee of the respondent since last 2 years. On 15th January 11972, the respondent refused to allow him to perform his duties because the applicant had demanded from him his wages for the month of December 1971. According to the applicant, this action of the respondent was illegal and hence ho has moved this application.
The respondent, in his written statement, admits that the applicant was his employee but, according to him, he had been in service only for 110 days as the Cafe had been started 125 days back when the applicant was engaged 15 days thereafter. The respondent further states and the applicant was being paid his wages daily and no wages are due to him. He admits that the applicant was performing his duties satisfactorily but, on 11th January 1972, his customers bycotted his Cafe and told him that the applicant was found committing unnatural offence with an animal. Consequently, the respondent terminated his services because he could not run the Cafe if the applicant was serving therein.
However, after filing the Reply Statement, the respondent remained absent and did not lead any evidence. The applicant has sworn an affidavit reiterating the averments made in his application. Since the statement of the applicant stands unchal lenged and there is no evidence in rebuttal. I see no reasons to disbelieve him. Even from the Reply Statement of the respon dent, it appears that the applicant was discharged from service on account of misconduct. Consequently, the respondent could not terminate his services without adopting the procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15 and without payment of his legal dues.
Therefore, the application is allowed and the applicant is to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer