| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 1335 1984 SLD 1335 1984 PLC 684 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos. JG-144 and FD-151 of 1983, decided on 29th February, 1984.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLALE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeals Nos. JG-144 and FD-151 of 1983, decided on 29th February, 1984.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLALE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
UNITED BANK LTD.
VS
MUMTAZ HUSSAIN RIZVI
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- --Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)-Re-instatement-Back benefits-No regular grievance notice served-Telegram of workman for early decision of his departmental appeal treated by Labour Court as grievance notice-Disallowing back benefits by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Sair Ali for Appellant. S. Faqir Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing : 27th February, 1984. JUDGMENT The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 14th February, 1983 rec9rd:d by the learned Priding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, directing the re-instatement of Mumtaz Hussain Rizvi (hereinafter to be called the respondent) in service without back benefits. The United Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are been disposed of together through this single judgment. 2. The allegation against the respondent as contained in the charge-sheet Exh. P. 3 is that he intentionally did not deduct 'Zakat' from S. B. Account No. 5835. His reply to the charge-sheet was not considered satisfactory, so enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal from service. 3. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the respondent was wrongly dismissed, inasmuch as the charge of not deducting 'Zakat' from S. B. Account No. 5835 was not established. As a matter of fact, the respondent was not deputed to deduct 'Zakat' but was deputed to check the ledgers to see if 'Zakat' had been deducted and if so, correctly and properly. No evidence that he was allotted any accounts for deduction of 'Zakat'. Also no evidence was produced during the enquiry. if the accounts of the wife and uncle of the respondent were allotted to him even for checking. Only Exh. R. 1 writing is on the record and it is said that it bears the signatures of the respondent and this statement was made by him. The respondent, however, disowned this statement. Even if this statement is taken to be of the respondent, it does not contain any such confession;…
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