Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 937 1976 SLD 937 1976 PLC 803
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab

SAEED AHMED, PRESIDING OFFICER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA

VS

GHULAM MUHAMMAD

Law:

Section:

1976 P L C 803 [Labour Court Punjab] Present: Saeed Ahmed, Presiding Officer CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD Appeal No. 45 of 1975, decided on 5th February 1975. Industrial dispute---- ---Domestic enquiry--- Charge must be proved by evidence of prosecution-findings without evidence---preserve dismissal based upon such evidence, held, rightly set aside by junior Labour Court-. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 22-A. Rana Sakhwat Ali for Appellant. Nazir Ahmed Naz for Respondent. JUDGMENT The respondent, Ghulam Muhammad was an employee of Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala. He was dismissed from service on 11-6-74. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Junior Labour Court, Lyallpur. He was ordered to be re-instated with back benefits. Aggrieved by this order the employer has filed this appeal. 2. One Nazir Ahmed Line Sardar in the establishment made a report to the effect that on 7-10-73 at 9-30 p. m. the respondent got many machines of spinning light closed down, thereafter, he came to his section and asked him to close machines No. 7 to 18 but he refused and so the respondent with the help of Muhammad Hussain gave a beating to him. In brief, the report contained the following allegations against the respondent:--- (1) that the respondent was responsible for closing down many machines in spinning light section ; (2) that the respondent ordered Nazir Ahmed to close down machines Nos. 7 to 18 but Nazir Ahmed refused to do so; (3) that the respondent manhandled Nazir Ahmed with one Muhammad Hussain. 3. On the above report, the respondent was charge-sheeted under Standing Order No. 15(3) (h) and (k). Obviously, the allegations against him were that he was guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour during the working hours at the establishment and striking work or inciting others to strike in con­travention of the provisions of law. The inquiry was entrusted one after the other to three different officers. The third officer was Muhammad Umar. He recorded the evidence of five witnesses. He was of the opinion that tile charge of riotous or disorderly behaviour…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492