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.
Appeal No. 307 of 1974, decided on 7th February 1975.
-- Ss. 25-A and 36-D-Termination of service without charge-sheet or notice-Illegal-Appellant (employer) appearing before Junior Labour Court on two occasions and then remaining absent-Ex parte proceed ings by Junior Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified-Re instatement awarded by Junior Labour Court upheld.
Mian Maudood Akbar for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
The respondent Ghulam Rasool was the employee of Sher Brothers Transport Company Limited, Lyallpur. He was removed from service on 16-4-74. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement with back benefits. The Junior Labour Court took ex parte proceedings against ihe employer. The statement of the employee was recorded. He said that he was removed from service without giving him any notice for one month. On the basis of this evidence the learned lower Court ordered his re-instatement. The employer has filed this appeal.
2. The only question which has been raised in this appeal is that the employer was not served at all and as such the Junior labour Court was not competent to take ex parte proceedings against him. I have gone through the record of the lower Court. It showed that an 17-6-74 Ch. Muhammad Ali, the Managing Director of Sher Brothers Co. with his counsel was present in Court. On 20-7-74 and 24-7-74 Mr. Maudood Akhar, Advocate was present on behalf of the employer. On 26-7-74 the employer became absent and so ex parte proceedings were taken against hire. I am satisfied that the trial Court was justified to take ex pane proceedings.
3. On merit the case is quite clear. The respondent was serving as Driver since 6-12-63. He was removed from service on 16-4-74. No charge, sheet or any notice was served on him. His removal from service was, illegal. The learned lower Court was justified to order his re-instatement.
4. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer