Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 2022 1981 SLD 2022 1981 PLC 55
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-100 of 1979, heard on 30th March, 1980.
Z. A. CHANNA, 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

SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

VS

MUHAMMAD HASHIM

Law:

Section:

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 irregu­larity and does not invalidate or vitiate notice. Azmatullah Khan for Appellant. Abdul Majeed for Respondent. 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 mis­appropriated 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 his re-instatement in service with full back benefits, as already stated. The appellant-Corporation has accordingly come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision of the learned Labour Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan, who appeared for the appellant-­Corporation, while Mr. Abdul Majeed appeared for the respondent. The first ground on which Mr. Azmatullah assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court was that no proper grievance notice was…
🔒
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