Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1215 1984 SLD 1215 1984 PLC 506
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. ST-205 of 1983, decided on 23rd January, 1984.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, 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

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., SIALKOT

VS

GHULAM RASOOL GHUMAN

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 37-Appeal-Production of additional evidence-Allowing additional evidence-Appellate Tribunal to decide whether addi­tional evidence sought to be produced was relevant and required for just decision-Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court on ground of having been passed by authority not empowered to do so-Addi­tional evidence sought to be produced not disclosed in application for such permission and photo-copy of document attached therewith not serving purpose of just decision-Production of additional evidence, in circumstances, not allowed by Appellate Tribunal. A. R. Sheikh for Appellant. M. Z. Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 17th January, 1984. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 29th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. 2. The respondent was a Cashier. He was dismissed on the charges that he was found in possession of that key of the safe also on 7th Septem­ber, 1981 which was meant for the Manager, that he in connivance with Mr. Liaqat Ali Cheema, Manager and Mr. Atif Javed, Assistant, forged drafts detailed in statements of charges and misappropriated the amounts of the said drafts alongwith the two officers mentioned above. The learned lower Court has set aside the dismissal order and directed the re-instatement of the respondent on the grounds that the Zonal Chief, Sialkot was not competent to dismiss the respondent and that the charges were not proved. 3. An application for additional evidence has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant for permission to produce additional evidence on the point that the Zonal Chief, Sialkot was competent to dis­miss the respondent. It has been argued that since the authority of the Zonal Chief, Sialkot was not challenged either in the grievance notice or in the grievance petition or in the evidence, so no evidence on the point was led by the appellant in the learned lower Court. In such circumstances additional evidence can be allowed but first of all the appellate…
🔒
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