| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1978 SLG 1149 1978 SLD 1149 1978 PLC 492 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. RI-135 of 1977/Pb., decided on 23rd July 1977
T M. JAMIL ASGHAR, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. RI-135 of 1977/Pb., decided on 23rd July 1977
T M. JAMIL ASGHAR, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD KABIR
Verses
PAKISTAN TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) -- S. O. 15(3)(h)-Misconduct-Act subversive of discipline--Time and place only not material factor-Nature of act to be kept in view -Workman charged of abduction of daughter of co-workman living in residential quarters provided by employer-Contention that alleged act committed not at premises of work and outside working hours did not amount to misconduct-Such act, held, nevertheless impaired reputation of employer's establishment and not only calculated to create resentment but alto unrest among its workers and being subversive of discipline amounted to misconduct. Central India Coalfields Ltd., Calcutta v. Ram Bliss Shobnath 1961 a P L C 543; Diwan Badri Das arid others (Trustees of the 'Tribunal') v. Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and others 1961 P L C ;694 and Opal Laboratories Ltd., Karachi v. Workers' Union 1972 P L C 83 rel. (a) Industrial dispute ----Domestic enquiry-Criminal case for same offence as forming basis of enquiry-No bar for holding domestic enquiry. Workman, in the instant case, was charge-sheeted for act subversive of discipline because of having abducted daughter of a co-worker. He was being prosecuted in criminal Court separately for the same offence. Contention was that Management was not justified in holding the enquiry when a criminal case was pending against the accused. Held: The pendency of a criminal case against a workman would not deprive a right of the employer to hold a domestic enquiry against him. The object of criminal proceeding is different from the domestic enquiry. The object of domestic enquiry is only to find out whether the workman charged with misconduct was fit to be retained in service or should he dismissed or any other penalty be awarded, if he is found guilty. In any case the right of the State under the Penal Code is quite distinct from the right of a private employer against his employee who commits a misconduct. An employer is the authority to deal departmentally with allegations of misconduct against a workman even though a criminal case is pending over the same subject-matter. This would not be contrary to…
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