Imam Bakhsh
Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
2. That the company has not been made party in the petition,
therefore the petition is not maintainable.
6. That the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble Court with
clean hands, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. That the contents of the petition are based on malafide and
baseless accusations.
ON FACTS: -
5. That para No. 5 is incorrect. The detail has been given in the
preliminary objections.
13. That in reply to para No. 13, it is submitted that when the
petitioner refused to receive the termination order by hand
delivery, the cause of action did arise, whereas the other
contents of the para are concerned, they are totally baseless.
20. That para No. 20 is not admitted. The petitioner served the
grievance notice which was duly replied with informing him
that his re-instatement cannot be made.
Humble Respondent,
Dated: _________
Through: -
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Ghulam Murtaza
Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
1. That there is no verbal order of termination, therefore,
question of its suspension does not arise at all. The petitioner
was actually proceeded against for remaining absent from
duty for more than 10 days without prior permission and
information, hence, was dismissed from the service.
2. That the applicant has got no prima facie case at all.
3. That balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant,
but is in favour of the respondent.
4. That the petitioner/applicant will not have to suffer an
irreparable loss.
5. That the contents of reply to petition and preliminary
objections may kindly be considered as part and parcel of the
suspension application.
ON FACTS: -
1. That para No. 1 is formal.
2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.
2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.
3. That para No. 3 is not admitted.
3. That para No. 4 is not admitted.
Counter affidavit is attached.
Prayer clause of the application is not admitted.
As there is no verbal order of termination, hence it
requires no suspension. The petitioner was issued
charge-sheet, for which he failed to submit the reply,
thereafter, inquiry notice was sent, the petitioner was
failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer,
consequently the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry
ex-parte and submitted his report to the management.
The petitioner was issued Second Show Cause Notice
and was asked for personal hearing, but he failed to
reply the Show Cause Notice and did not appear in
person for personal hearing. Since, the misconduct of
the petitioner was proved, therefore he was dismissed
from service.
In view of above, it is respectfully prayed that
application in hand along-with the main petition and
affidavit may graciously be dismissed with costs in the
interest of justice.
Humble Respondent,
Dated: ________
Through: -
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Ghulam Murtaza
Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ch. Muhammad Sarif General Manager, Ehsan Elahi
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Ghulam Murtaza
Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
1. That the company has not been made party in the petition,
therefore the petition is not maintainable.
5. That the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble Court with
clean hands, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.
1. That para No. 1 not admitted as correct. The fact is that petitioner
is on the employment of present management with effect from
1.6.99.
8. That para No. 8 is not admitted being incorrect. The fact remains
that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for remaining absent from
duty for more than 10 days without prior permission or
information, for which charge-sheet on 23.5.2002 was sent to him
at his postal address (copies of charge sheet and postal receipts
are attached). The petitioner failed to submit reply to the charge-
sheet. The management appointed an inquiry officer to inquire
into the matter. Inquiry notice dated 28.5.2002 was sent to the
petitioner, wherein he was asked to appear before the Inquiry
Officer on 3.6.2002 (copies of inquiry notice and postal receipt
are attached). The petitioner failed to appear before the Inquiry
Officer, which was conducted ex-parte. Inquiry Officer submitted
his report, in which he found the petitioner guilty of charges
levelled against him. The petitioner was issued second Show
Cause Notice and was also asked to appear in person for personal
hearing. But the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearing
and also did not reply the second Show Cause Notice. (Copies of
second Show Cause Notice and postal receipt are attached).
Consequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide
dismissal order dated 9.6.2002. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner is totally baseless.
15.That para No. 15 is incorrect. Reply has already been given in the
previous paras.
Humble Respondent,
Dated: _________
Through: -
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above-titled case is fixed for hearing for 03.03.03.
The Advocate for the respondent is proceeding to Rawalpindi
in connection with his domestic affairs.
Dated: 01.03.03
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Director Ch. Ateeq-ur-
Rehman, 61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.
……Applicant
VERSUS
Respectfully Sheweth: -
4. That the financial result of the company ever since it went into
production reveal that it has been consistently incurring
losses. Detail of losses i.e. declared loss and assessed loss is
as under: -
Income year Assessment year Declared loss Assessed loss
30.09.1997 1998-1999 230,434.00 156,252.00
30.09.1998 1999-2000 205,515.00 105,376.00
30.09.1999 2000-2001 20,307,966.00 9,091,689.00
30.09.2000 2001-2002 31,842,013.00 30,461,766.00
30.09.2001 2002-2003 9,567,199.00 Under assessment
6. That it will be not out of context to mention here that over the
past three years there have been occasions that the company
had to stop the operation for want of raw material due
exclusively to lack of finance. The company effected the
retrenchment to improve the position, but all in vain.
7. That the three years operation of this company made to all too
obvious that Ehsan Elahi Industries cannot be operated as
viable unit and the company cannot sustain further financial
loss now.
PRAYER: -
In view of the above, it is respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
grant the necessary permission to the
applicant to close down Ehsan Elahi
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 61-C, Industrial Estate,
Multan.
Dated: ________
Ch. Ateeq-ur-Rehman,
Director, Ehsan Elahi
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Verification: -
Applicant
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ch. Ateeq-ur-Rehman S/o Ch. Habib-ur-Rehman,
Muslim, adult, Director Ehsan Elahi Industries (Pvt.)
Ltd. 61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of
April, 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are true &
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT
Regards.
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN