Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 3058 1971 SLD 3058 = 1971 PLC 235
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 12 of 1970, decided on 25th November 1970.
Presented By: Agha lmdadally. Chairman
Azmatullah Khan for Applicant.

DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD

VERSUS

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB

Law:

Section:

Industrial Rel4tions Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 47 (2) -Punishment during pendency of industrial dispute- Office-bearer of registered Trade Union charged of misconduct-Findings fair and proper domestic enquiry proving allegations of misconduct Accused failing to appear before Court despite Issue of summons Case decided ex parte and Management, in circumstances, granted permission to take disciplinary action :order relevant rules entailing even dismissal.             DECISION     This application under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad and the respondent is Muhammad Yaqoob, who is a Conductor employed under the applicant District Manager in the Service under his control. 2. The facts shown in the application are that the respon dent is said to be an office-bearer of the G. T. S. Employees' Association (Regd.), Hyderabad and certain Industrial Disputes are pending for adjudication and determination in this Court. On 7th July 1969, while the respondent was on duty as Conductor in G. T. S. Bus No. 3619 on Sanghar-Sakrand route Mr. Iqbal Hussain, Traffic Assistant, checked his bus at Khadro Mori. On such surprise checking 15 passengers were found travelling without tickets of whom, it is alleged, the respondent had already realised fare from ten passengers and had not issued a single ticket from Nawabshah to the checking place and it is further alleged when the Checking-Party desired to check the cash of the respondent he told the Checking-Party only the cash in his bag and had not allowed them to search his uniform's pockets. The respondent was subsequently charge-sheeted on such report of his misconduct by dishonesty and was asked to submit his explanation, which he did but it was found unsatisfactory. A domestic enquiry was then, as ordered by the applicant, held against the respondent who was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer after tire conclusion of the enquiry proceedings gave a report adverse to the respondent finding him guilty of the misconduct,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register