Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI1I of 1969)- --- Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)--.Shortage of Store-Penalty of recovery of alleged loss-No evidence on record as to what stock was entrusted to accused while taking charge and to fix responsibility of accused -Order of Labour Court setting aside impugned penalty order, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Appellant. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision, dated 14th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and the penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,036 was set aside. 2. The facts are that the respondent was Ballast Inspector, Kundian and was incharge of Stone Ballast. He was transferred as Sub-Engineer. While delivering charge' it was found that the stone ballast was short by 8,072 of t. He was charge-sheeted for the shortage to which he did not reply. Without making enquiry the penalty was inflicted upon him. During the period he was incharge of ballast, measurement was made but not in his presence. The measurement record was not produced. No evidence was produced that although he was not called at the time of measurement, yet he had afterwards accepted it by putting his signatures on the measurement record. There is no evidence that at the time he had taken over as Ballast Inspector, the ballast in dispute was existing and its measurement was made in his presence. No charge report of the time when the respondent had taken over as Ballast Inspector to show that ballast of a particular measurement was entrusted to him. In the absence of evidence on they above-mentioned matters, it is difficult to throw the responsibility…

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