2011 P L C 159
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Quetta]
Before Abdul Qadir Mengal, Member
SAID AKBAR
Versus
Messrs GATERON (INDUSTRIES) LIMITED
Labour Appeal No.40 of 2009, decided on 2 9th November, 2010.
Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) ---
----Ss. 41 & 55(3) ---Industrial and Commercial 'Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance
(VI of 1968), S.O.15(2) ---Dismissal from service ---Grievance application ---Appeal ---
Employee's terms of appointment were that he would serve as a full time employee; and
would not engage himself in any other work, business, profession or service, directly or
indirectly during tenure of his services and on contravention of said conditions, the services
of the employee would be liable to termination ---Employee in violation of the terms and
conditions of his appointment, entered into service of other employer ---Employee was
dismissed from service after issuing him show -cause notice and holding inquiry against hi m--
-Grievance application filed by the employee against order of his dismissal had been
dismissed by the Labour Court ---Validity ---Employee, after accepting the terms and
conditions of his appointment, could not go back from same ---Grievance application of
employee, was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court and his dismissal from service could
not be interfered with in appeal.
Azam Jan Zarkoon for Appellant.
S. M. Iqbal for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL QADIR MENGAL (MEMBER). --- This appeal has b een preferred against the
order dated 3 -11-2009 passed by Presiding Officer 3rd Labour Court Balochistan at Hub
whereby application of appellant under section 41 of IRO -2008 for his reinstatement with full
back benefits was dismissed.
2. The facts of app lication or appeal were that applicant/appellant entered into service of
respondent Messrs Gatron Industries Limited 3 -3-2008 through appointment Letter No.APW -
7521 -03, dated 3 -3-2000. The terms of appointment letter were that applicant would serve as
a full time employee and shall not engage in any other work, business, profession or service
directly or indirectly during tenure of his service. The contravention of above condition, the
services of applicant/appellant would liable of his dismissal or termina tion in view of the
terms and conditions of the appointment. However, applicant/appellant in violation of the
terms and conditions of his appointment entered into service of Ismail Industries. Whereupon
applicant was served charge -sheet notice on 15 -11-2008 in result of that an inquiry was
initiated against applicant/appellant and one Muhammad Zakeria conducted inquiry in the
matter and same was proved against appellant/applicant that he was holding dual appointment
in Gatron Industries Limited and as well as Ismail Industries. The appellant challenged his
dismissal order through grievance notice and in result filed grievance application before the
Court, denying his dual appointment and serving in Messrs Ismail Industries. He further
prayed that,
(a) Cour t direct the respondent to reinstate the appellant/applicant with full back -
benefits.
(b) Hold that the alleged misconduct is only omission which does not warrant dismissal.
(c) Any other relief under the circumstances of the case.
(d) Respondent fil ed his re -joinder raised some legal objections and also contested the
application on factual grounds.
(e) Heard Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon for appellant while Mr. S.M. Iqbal Advocate for
respondent.
5. After hearing both sides I have also perused the record. Record supports the verdict or
order of the learned Presiding Officer IIIrd Labour Court dated 3 -11-2009, that
appellant/applicant even accepting the agreement of appointment and it's terms and
conditions failed to honour the same and acted in violation o f the terms of his appointment
letter dated 3 -3-2008. And during the said period he was also serving in Ismail Industries. On
termination from Ismail Industries applicant applied or approached the Labour Court for his
reinstatement, where the question of h is dual service was came into objection,
appellant/applicant, altogether denied of his - serving in respondent company the Gatron
Industries Limited.
6. Though learned counsel for appellant Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon strenuously argued, that
under the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968, there is no such embargo for serving in two
different companies at a one and same time as such the respondent cannot throw out or
dismiss the appellant/applicant from service on the above ground. However, I failed to
concure with his view, because appellant/applicant after accepting the terms and conditions
of his appointment in Messrs Gatron Industries Limited, could not go back from the terms
and conditions, whereas the terms of the appointment letter or clause 5 through which the
respondent has fixed the conditions does not contravene any legal right or rule of any
prevailing law. Therefore, in my view appellant/ applicant is abide(sic) by his conduct and as
well as actions to violate the rules or terms of his appointment letter.
7. As such being above the order of learned Presiding Officer IIIrd Labour Court at Hub
dated 3 -11-2009 requires no any interference, same is upheld, in result, present appeal is
failed and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./20/BLT Appe al dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.