| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3062 1971 SLD 3062 = 1971 PLC 255 |
1st Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 34 of 1970, decided on 25th November 1970.
Presented By: Agha Imdadally, Chairman and Kasam Usman Kandawala, Member
Azmatullah Khan for Applicant.
Application No. 34 of 1970, decided on 25th November 1970.
Presented By: Agha Imdadally, Chairman and Kasam Usman Kandawala, Member
Azmatullah Khan for Applicant.
DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD KHAN
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 47
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 47(2) Punishment during pendency of industrial dispute-Office-bearers of referred Trade Union charged of misconduct-Findings of fair and domestic enquiry proving allegations of misconduct-Accused falling to rebut allegations before Labour Court despite summons Case decided ex parte and Management, in circumstances, granted permission to take disciplinary action entailing even dismissal. DECISION AGHA IMDADALLY (CHIRMAN).--This application under section 47 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyder abad and the respondent is Muhammad Khan, who is a Conductor employed under the applicant District Manager in the service in his control. 2. The facts shown in the application are that the respon dent is said to be an office-bearer of the Road Transport Corporation Labour Association (Regd.), Hyderabad and certain Industrial Disputes are pending for' adjudication' and determina tion in this Court. On 29th August 1969, while the respondent was on duty 'as Conductor in G. T. S. Bus No. 2478 on Thatta-Jang Shahi route his bus was checked at Kalri by Mr. Iqbal Hussain, Traffic Assistant who was accompanied by Mr: Muhammad Ahmed Khan, Deputy Traffic Manager. On such surprise checking 13 passengers were found travelling without tickets of whom, it is alleged, the respondent had already realised fare from 9 and had not issued the tickets to them. The respondent was sub sequently 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 the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings gave a report adverse to the respondent finding him guilty of the misconduct, on the fact shown above, as this term is de6rted in section 7 (2) (b) of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. Thereafter the respondent was served a show- cause notice and he was also heard in person by the applicant. According…