Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1593 1985 SLD 1593 1985 PLC 137
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-308 of 1983, decided on 21st March, 1984.
SARDAR 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

IRSHAD AHMAD

VS

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute----- ---Disciplinary action for misconduct--Bank employee--Charge-sheet to be served by competent authority Competent authority--Appointing or punishing authority Charge sheet served by person neither appointing nor punishing authority--Resultant dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding re-instatement without back benefits Wage Commission Award (First), para.258-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3) (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ---S. 25-A--Grievance notice and grievance petition--Limitation runs from date of cause of action--Establishment rules providing departmental appeal--Cause of action accrues on dismissal of appeal--Appeal filed--No reply given--Limitation, in circumstances, not started--Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly repelled objection as to limitation declaring grievance notice and petition as within time. Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1984. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 5-5-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service. On behalf of the respondent cross-objections have been filed which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal. 2. The appellant was an messenger. The allegation for which he was dismissed was that he had tampered with his bill for the charge of urine test amounting to Rs.6 changing the amount into Rs.526 and withdrew the amount of Rs.290 that was passed. The charge-sheet is EXh.P.1 and its reply is Exh.P.2. The appellant took the position in reply Exh.P.2 that he had submitted the bill for Rs.526 from the very beginning. 3. So for as the allegation made against the appellant is concerned, it stands proved. He in reply to the charge-sheet admitted that the bill was for Rs.526 and at the same time said that he did not know that it was false. He proposed to refund the amount if the bill was being considered false. Almost same kind of statement was made by him before the enquiry…
🔒
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