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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 210 of 1982, decided on 20th April, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 17‑2‑1982 in Writ Petition No. 564 of 1982).
Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981)‑
--Art. 9 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. Os. 12 & 15‑Termi nation of services of workman on purported ground his imprisonment in Jail‑High Court observing that such termination was a mere device to avoid holding of domestic inquiry into allegation against workman and therefore, could not constitute termination simpliciter Order of High Court declining to interfere with order of Labour Court passed in favour of workman‑Held, unexceptionable.
Sh. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing : 20th April, 1982.
‑This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment dated. 17‑2‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitutional petition arising out of a matter dealt with under the Labour Laws, was dismissed in limine.
2. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's (employer) case before the Labour Court was that the respondent No. I (workman) having been imprisoned on account of a sentence awarded to him by a Military Court, therefore, the latter's services were terminated simply on account of his being not available for rendering service to the petitioners : and, further that it was not a removal on account of his having taken any part in the strike which was declared illegal.
3. The learned Single Judge in the High Court noticed the charge‑sheet, and the statement made by Mr. Zakaullah (R. W. 11) General Duty Officer of the petitioner before the Labour Court and observed that the termination of the respondent's services on the purported ground that he was physically imprisoned in a Jail, was "a mere device adopted by the petitioner to avoid holding of domestic inquiry into the allegations against the respondent and, therefore, could not be construed as termination simpliciter". In these circumstances, the learned Judge declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction the High Court as it was not considered a fit case to do so. The approach of the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. We have not been shown: any reason why this Court should interfere with the impugned order. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer