Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 992 1978 SLD 992 1978 PLC 150
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Petition No. 733 of 1976, decided on 6th January 1977
S MUHAMMAD MIAN QURESHI, 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

HAMEED AHMED KHAN

VS

REGIONAL MANAGER. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATION, RAHIM YAR KHAN

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)------ -- S. 25-A-Re-instatement of dismissed worker-No substantial evidence led against worker in domestic enquiry nor evidence available properly called for and made a part of enquiry--Technical mistake on part of Management-Technicalities making for proof of guilt and non­ observance of same reducing enquiry to a farce-Benefit of non observance cannot be denied to worker faced with dismissal from service ­Order of dismissal set aside and worker ordered to be re-instated but without back benefits. M. G. Rubbani for Petitioner. Arshad Mehmood for Respondent. ORDER Muhammad Hamid Ahmed Khan, has brought this application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for reinstatement as Stores Supervisor of the Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation, Rahim Yar Khan. He stated is the application that he was issued charge­ sheet on 4-6-1976, which was replied by him on 11-6-1976. Subsequently without giving him any personal hearing he was terminated. As he was not properly heard in the enquiry, he therefore deserved to be re-instated. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent Management (Agricultural Development & Supply Corporation. Rahim Yar Khan) it was stated that the petitioner was duly charge-sheeted for the misconduct and after holding a regular enquiry against him be was terminated from service in due course. According to the charge-sheet the following allegations were made against the petitioner: (1) As Store Supervisor of Sale Depot at Chak No. 52/P he overcharged from customers in the sale of cotton seed fertilizers. (2) He removes cotton, seed from some of the bags and sold short weight bags to the growers. (3) He gave fifty rupees demonetised note to a grower while returning him the balance money. According to the enquiry report Exh. P-3 (R. 4) the first two charges were not proved against tae petitioner. The only charge, proved in the enquiry was what he charged the customers in the sale of cotton seeds enhanced rates and deposited the amount realized by him according to the new rates fixed by the Government which had been reduced by Rs. 2 per bag. It is…
🔒
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