HABIB AHMAD vs PTCL Regln — 2025 PLC 81 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

HABIB AHMAD VS PTCL Regln.60(1)---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.2 (c),(f) & (h)---Grievance petition---Matter before National Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission')---Expeditious disposal---Recording of evidence dispensed with by the Commission---Legality---Commission, powers of---Pertinently, the present case had been remanded by the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission ('Full Bench') to decide the same preferably within two months and to implead contractor (Ask Development) as a party---Orders sheet of the (present) petition showed that Ask Development had been impleaded as party (as Respondents Nos.6 and 7) and several notices had been issued to them to file their written reply but they showed their lack of interest in the matter and deliberately lingered on the matter and later (on 24-01-2024), their right of filing written reply was closed---According to the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, "for the expeditious disposal of the business before the Commission, it may direct any examination or cross-examination or re-examination to be cut short or dispensed with"---So on the verbal request of counsels for the parties for the expeditious disposal of the case, the Commission dispensed with the requirement of recording of evidence in the matter---Even, in the remanding order, the Full Bench mentioned that the Trial Court, of it felt necessary, to record evidence of the parties and decide the matter preferably within two months---Thus, , the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence---National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination---Grievance petition was allowed. Citation Name: 2025 PLC 81 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSIONBookmark this Case HABIB AHMAD VS PTCL Ss. 2 (viii) & (xxviii) & 33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os.2(c), (f) & (h) and 15(4)---Grievance petition---Contract between company and contractor for supply of labour (employees)---Status of such employees---Plea of the Respondents / PTCL was that the petitioner was not their employee but of contractor (Ask Development) which was evident from an appointment letter dated 07-02-2017 issued by Ask Development which was signed by petitioner---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 03-03-2001 as Lab Technician ; whereas, annexed appointment letter of Respondents/ PTCL, having been signed by the their Assistant General Manager (S&E) M.TR, also showed that the petitioner was directly appointed by PTCL and there was no mention of Ask Development in said appointment order---Therefore, the petitioner was actually employee of PTCL and not Ask Development---Thus, Ask Development was dummy contractor having no authority over the petitioner---Petitioner served more than 15 years with the Respondents / PTCL, thus, how was it possible that the petitioner was terminated from service by Ask Development on 11-05-2020---Letter dated 07-02-2017 by the Respondent/contractor (Ask Development) was based on mala fide and it had no legal status---It was evident from the record (salary slip etc.) that the petitioner had directly received his monthly salary from Respondents / PTCL, showing that the petitioner was on the pay roll of the respondents / PTCL and worked under the management of the respondents / PTCL and not of Respondent / contractor (Ask Development)---Record also showed that on 23-12-2005, an investigation committee, consisting of three members of respondents / PTCL, had been made for investigation of daily wages employees and the said committee verified 34 employees and the petitioner was also included in the said list at serial number 34---Thus, the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence---National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination---Grievance petition was allowed. Citation Name: 2025 PLC 81 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSIONBookmark this Case HABIB AHMAD VS PTCL S.33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)---Grievance petition---Dismissal on the allegation of misconduct---Show-Cause Notice, non-issuing of---Inquiry, non-holding of---Effect---Record showed that the petitioner was terminated from service without issuing any show-cause notice and without holding any inquiry---It was established that the petitioner had been terminated from service without observing prescribed procedure as provided under the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (S.O.) Ordinance, 1968---Thus, the action of the respondents / PTCL was illegal, without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eyes of law---National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination---Grievance petition was allowed.

HABIB AHMAD vs PTCL Regln — 2025 PLC 81 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC