Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑95 of 1984, heard on 15th August, 1985.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 2(c) and S.O. 15 (a)‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Manager holding power of attorney of Limited Firm for termination of service of employee‑‑Dismissal order passed by such Manager‑‑Order of employer.

1980 P L C 1167 and 1980 P L C 1224 rel.

Abdul Hadi Fareed for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 15th August, 1985.

The instant appeal is directed against the order of the IVth Sind Labour Court, dated 31‑3‑1984, whereby he reinstated temporarily the respondent in service.

2. The facts are that the respondent was employed as a double sider on 24‑6‑1981 in the Ring Department of the appellant establishment. He was habitual absentee from performance of his duties, therefore, domestic enquiry was made in which he was dismissed. The charge‑sheet, dated 26‑2‑1983 is for habitual absence in which his past record of warning letters was mentioned. This charge‑sheet was personally received by the respondent. The respondent submitted his explanation on 5‑3‑1983 which was found to be unsatisfactory. Ultimately he was dismissed for remaining habitual absentee. In the grievance application the Labour Court did not find favour with the enquiry proceedings and allowed the respondent to be temporarily reinstated.

3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hadi Fareed on behalf of the appellants and the respondent in person.

4. The allegations raised by the respondent, Taoos Khan are that the enquiry officer did not allow him to cross‑examine the witnesses and that he did not allow his co‑worker to cross‑examine the witnesses. I have seen the enquiry proceedings in which the Enquiry Officer has given an opportunity to the respondent to cross‑examine but he flatly refused. Such a note is made in the enquiry proceedings. He was known to be habitual absentee from performing his duties and as such his own statement appears on record which briefly is as under:‑‑

This statement is signed by the respondent In other words he has been apologetic and requested for forgiveness. However, Mr. Abdul Hadi Fareed, who is the Manager holding the power‑of‑attorney did not forgive him and got him dismissed. This admission in the domestic enquiry proceedings is sufficient.

5. A point raised is that Mr. Abdul Hadi Fareed, holding a power‑of‑attorney cannot be an employer and as such he cannot dismiss the respondent. In this respect, I am referred to a case decided by A this Tribunal Muhammad Irshad v. Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi 1980 P L C 1167. The following extract is quoted:‑‑

"Relying on this decision, I am of the view that the power‑of attorney given by the respondent Mills to Mr. A.H Fareed conferred on him the powers so described in it. These powers included (a) the power to dismiss a workman from service; as provided under the law, and (b) generally to do all other lawful acts necessary for the conduct of smooth or efficient running of the Mills. The power to dismiss a workman obviously includes the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a workman and to appoint an Enquiry Officer. As such, by virtue of the Power of Attorney granted to Mr. A.H. Fareed, he undoubtedly had the power not only to dismiss the appellant but also to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and to appoint an Enquiry Officer. No doubt, in the first round of the proceedings the Labour Court and the High Court had taken the view that the respondent mills had failed to establish that Mr. A.H. Fareed could be deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the Labour Laws, but this view was held on the basis of the fact that the Power of Attorney had not been produced by Mr. Fareed. However, in the subsequent proceedings out of which the present appeal has arisen, the Power of Attorney was produced before the learned Labour Court. It clearly confers upon Mr. Fareed the power to dismiss a workman as provided by law which obviously includes the powers to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and to appoint an Enquiry Officer."

6. It is also observed in 1980 P L C 1224 that employer includes any person responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the establishment. The Administration Manager of a Joint Stock commercial establishment is covered by the definition of the employer The termination order signed by such a person could not be construed as not by the employer.

7. Thus, Mr. Abdul Hadi Fareed by virtue of holding Power of Attorney is a person who could terminate the employees etc.

8. I have at tentatively read the enquiry proceedings and hold that Taoos Khan, the respondent was habitual in availing leave without permission and the enquiry is in order. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

A. E.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.