Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute--- ----Domestic enquiry-Enquiry Officer to be appointed by employer-Punjab Road Transport Corporation worker case-District Manager simply writing "yes" on proposal made by a clerk for appointment of Enquiry Officer without mentioning name of such officer Name of Enquiry Officer nominated by clerk - Enquiry Officer not '1.A. being nominated by District Manager enquiry held by such officer, held, defective-Re-instatement awarded by Labour Court, in circum­stances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal - Re-instatement being for technical defect accused workman, held, not entitled to back benefits - Back benefits on re-instatement - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A .& 37. Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing : 27th March, 1983. JUDGMENT This appeal calls in question the decision dated 25-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1. Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. 2. During checking of the bus conducted by the respondent, three girl students were found without tickets, although the respondent is alleged to have realised the fare of paisas fifty per head from them. According to the appellant, the respondent did not give reply to the charge-sheet, whereas the case of the respondent is that reply was deliv­ered to a clerk and receipt was taken from him. The respondent, however, could not give the name of the said clerk. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the District Manager did not apply his mind while ordering enquiry, inasmuch as he wrote `yes' to the suggestion made by a clerk. If a charge-sheet is duly replied, the said reply is to be considered by applying the mind to decide whether the reply is satisfactory or not and whether the enquiry be held. The respondent failed to prove that reply to the charge-sheet was submitted, because he could not disclose the name of the clerk who, according to him, had received the reply. If the name of the said employee had been disclosed, the appellant would have been in a position to enquire from the said clerk about the receipt…

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