| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3004 = 1981 SLD 3004 = 1981 PLC 55 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-100 of 1979, heard on 30th March, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
Azmatullah Khan for Appellant. Abdul Majeed for
Respondent.
Appeal No. HYD-100 of 1979, heard on 30th March, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
Azmatullah Khan for Appellant. Abdul Majeed for
Respondent.
SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD HASHIM
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 25-A(1)
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25-A(1)-Grievance notice to employer-Notice handed over personally to authorised agent of Management-Neither returned to workman nor workman informed that it was improper for want of his signatures--Plea of its being improper raised for first time in appeal before Appellate Tribunal under S. 37-Grievance notice, held, not essentially required under law to be signed by aggrieved workman --Failure of workman to sign grievance notice-At best mere irregu larity and does not invalidate or vitiate notice. Date of hearing : 30th March, 1980. ORDER This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 31-1-1979, directing the re-instatement in service of the respondent-workman with full back benefits. 2. The respondent, who was employed as a Conductor in the appellant-- Corporation, was charge-sheeted for allegedly carrying excess luggage for which he had received payment of Rs. 45 from passengers but had mis appropriated this amount; carrying 3 ticketless passengers from whom he had realized the fare but pocketed the same; wrongly punching tickets for the Upper journey when the journey for Down side was being performed and finally, making incorrect entries in the Waybill and not closing the same. The respondent was found guilty of the first two charges in the domestic enquiry held by Mahmood Haroon, Station Superintendent of the appellant-Corporation, and accordingly he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 3-4-1978. The respondent challenged his dismissal before the learned VIth Labour Court which allowed his grievance petition and directed hisβ¦