PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETYLIMITED vs MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal calls in question a judgment of the Lahore High Court that dismissed in limine a constitutional petition arising from labour proceedings. The petitioner-employer contended that the respondent-workman's services were terminated simply because he was unavailable for service due to imprisonment by a Military Court, and not due to participation in an illegal strike. The High Court, examining the record and witness statements, found that the termination based on physical imprisonment was merely a device to avoid holding a domestic inquiry and thus could not be construed as termination simpliciter, declining to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found the approach of the High Court unexceptionable, holding that no grounds were shown to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
- Whether termination of a workman's services on the ground of imprisonment can be construed as termination simpliciter when no domestic inquiry is held?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in writ jurisdiction when the High Court's refusal to intervene in a labour matter is based on sound reasoning?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--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.
Cited by 1 case
- AHMED BARCH vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI 2006 PLC (C.S.) 993