Said Akbar V. Gateron (Industries) Limited,
Bench: Abdul Qadir Mengal
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a labour dispute between an employee, Said Akbar, and his employer, Gatron Industries Limited. When Akbar was hired, his appointment letter required him to work full-time for the company and barred him from taking up any other job, business, or profession during his employment. Despite this condition, Akbar took up work with another company, Ismail Industries, while still employed at Gatron. When this came to light, Gatron issued him a show-cause notice, conducted an inquiry, found the allegation of dual employment proven, and dismissed him.
Akbar challenged his dismissal, first through a grievance notice and then before the Labour Court, denying that he had worked for Ismail Industries. The Labour Court rejected his application and upheld the dismissal. He then appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Quetta.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It held that since Akbar had voluntarily accepted the terms of his appointment, including the restriction against outside employment, he could not later argue that this condition was invalid or unenforceable. The Tribunal also found that this contractual condition did not violate any law, including the Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Therefore, his dismissal for violating the terms of his contract was justified, and the Labour Court's decision was upheld.
This case matters because it confirms that employees who accept specific contractual conditions, such as restrictions on outside employment, are bound by them, and violation of such agreed terms can justify dismissal.
یہ مقدمہ ایک ملازم، سعید اکبر، اور اس کے آجر، گیٹرون انڈسٹریز لمیٹڈ کے درمیان مزدور تنازعہ سے متعلق تھا۔ جب اکبر کو ملازمت پر رکھا گیا تھا تو اس کے تقرری نامے میں یہ شرط رکھی گئی تھی کہ وہ کمپنی کے لیے کل وقتی کام کرے گا اور اپنی ملازمت کے دوران کسی اور کام، کاروبار یا پیشے سے وابستہ نہیں ہوگا۔ اس شرط کے باوجود، اکبر نے گیٹرون میں ملازم رہتے ہوئے ایک اور کمپنی، اسماعیل انڈسٹریز، میں کام کرنا شروع کر دیا۔ جب یہ بات سامنے آئی تو گیٹرون نے اسے شوکاز نوٹس جاری کیا، انکوائری کی، دوہری ملازمت کے الزام کو ثابت پایا، اور اسے ملازمت سے برخاست کر دیا۔
اکبر نے اپنی برخاستگی کو چیلنج کیا، پہلے شکایتی نوٹس کے ذریعے اور پھر لیبر کورٹ میں، جہاں اس نے اسماعیل انڈسٹریز میں کام کرنے سے انکار کیا۔ لیبر کورٹ نے اس کی درخواست مسترد کر دی اور برخاستگی کو برقرار رکھا۔ اس کے بعد
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.