Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1631 1982 SLD 1631 1982 PLC 855
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR. 685 of 1981, heard on 21st February, 1982.
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

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI

VS

MRS. NUZHAT SULTANA AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 25-A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ­ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12 (3) read with Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-Ter­mination of service - Grievance petition before Labour Court Railway employee - Reservation Clerk-Not a workman ­Grievance petition before Labour Court-Not maintainable ­Proper remedy by way of appeal before Service Tribunal-Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 4. Johnson do Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed 1980 P L C 622; Mufti Mushtaque Ahmed v. The Federation of Pakistan P L D 1981 S C 172 and Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation v. Ma E. Mun A I R 1937. Rang. 45 rel. S.M. A. Alavi for Appellants. M. Rafi Shafqat for Respondents, Date of hearing: 21st February, 1982. DECISION The respondent who was employed, at the relevant time as a Reserva­tion Clerk in the Upper Reservation Office at Karachi, was removed from service with effect on 11th August, 1980 on the charge that she dishonestly got four first class sleeper tickets cancelled and obtained refunds on these tickets amounting Rs. 750, when no refund on these tickets was payable. The action against the respondent was admittedly taken under the Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and was preceded by a preliminary enquiry. The respondent challenged the orders of her removal from service before the learned Vth Labour Court. The Railway Administration, who are appellants herein, resisted the grievance petition filed by the respondent inter alia on the ground that she was not a workman for the purposes of the I. R. O. The learned Labour Court has not examined this objection of the appellants but has allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and directed her re-instatement in service with full back benefits on the grounds that neither any charge was communicated to the respondent within one month of her alleged act of misconduct as required under the labour laws, nor was any proper enquiry held against her, as the witnesses who are said to have testified against her do not appear to have been examined in her presence nor she was afforded an opportunity of…
🔒
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