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. 1G‑275 of 1984, decided on 30th October, 1984.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑---
‑‑S. O. 15 (3)(a)‑Factories Act (XXV of 1934) ‑ Misconduct Disobedience of lawful and reasonable order‑Driver employed in Mills asked to work after normal duty hours‑No overtime allowed‑. Refusing to perform such duty on plea that no overtime would be given and also for reasons of illness of mother‑Plea that Factories Act, 1934 not applicable hence Driver was bound to give duty for 24 hours‑Plea repelled‑Driver though not employed in manufacturing process but being employed in Mills was covered by Factories Act, 1934‑Order of Labour Court setting aside punishment of dismissal for alleged misconduct of disobedience of order, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
1980 P L C 724 distinguished.
‑‑--S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition‑Adjudication of‑Pleadings‑Law of pleadings in Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Not applicable‑Plea not raised in grievance petition but such plea taken and established in domestic enquiry‑Management, in circumstances, held, not surpri sed by such plea when raised before Labour Court in statement of petitioner and management had opportunity of rebuttal‑Plea that plea not having been raised in grievance petition could not be taken into consideration by Labour Court, in circumstances, repelled. P L D 1984 Quetta 99 held not applicable.
P L D 1984 Quetta 99 held not applicable.
Mahboob Alam for Appellant.
Sajjad Syal for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 27th October, 1984.
The decision, dated 16th April, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5. Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.
2. At 5.00 p. m. the respondent was asked to go to the residence of Deputy Agricultural Manager who wanted to go to the field on duty. The stand taken by the respondent was that his normal duty hours were over and as the system of payment of overtime wages had been stopped he would not give overtime. He also said that his mother was ill, so he had to go home.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Factories Act does not apply to the respondent, so no question of fixation of duty hours arises and that the respondent was to give duty for 24 hours. This is wrong that the Factories Act does not apply. The appellant is a Mills where the manufacturing process is done. The appel lant, no doubt, is not directly employed in any manufacturing process but admittedly he is employed in a Mills. The objection is not that he is a worker as defined in the Factories Act nor this is necessary for him to be such a worker. Apart from it P.W. 1 has said that working hours are from 8.30 to 4.30. So at 5.00 p.m. the duty hours of the respondent were off. He was not given any overtime chit under which he could have claim ed overtime wages. Moreover, the other ground given by the respondent for declining to do duty after 4.30 was that his mother was ailing. The ground was not refuted or controverted by any cogent evidence. P. W. 1 admitted that the respondent had said that some one was ill at home, so he had to leave. No doubt, in the grievance petition the illness of the mother was not pleaded but since during the enquiry such a plea was set up as admitted by the witness examined before the enquiry officer, it cannot he said that the appellant was surprised with such a plea. Before the learned lower Court, the respondent stated so in his statement, so the appellant had opportunity to rebut it. P L D 1984 Quetta 99 is not helpful because the law of pleadings as enunciated in C. P. C. is not applicable to labour cases. 1980 P L C 724 is not helpful as no question of over time was involved and during duty hours the worker had in that case refused to work.
4. As a result, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer