| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 1598 1985 SLD 1598 1985 PLC 145 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-547 of 1982/Pb., decided on 30th June, 1982.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. FD-547 of 1982/Pb., decided on 30th June, 1982.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Messrs RAFHAN MAIZE
VS
ABDUL HAFEEZ
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---S.25-A--Dismissal--Holding of regular enquiry--Factum of flowing of liquid though admitted by workman yet done under instructions from plant superintendent and workman having no criminal intention--Such admission not being a qualified one, workman should have been provided opportunity by holding regular enquiry and in absence thereof workman has been caused prejudice--Order of dismissal of workman, held, rightly struck down by lower Court. Javed Altaf for Appellant. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 7-6-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. 2. The allegation against the respondent was that according to the report of Sample Man Mohammad Sarwar, L.S.W. remained flowing out through rubber pipe from 11.40 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. on the night between 12/13-11-1981, which was not only against the rules of the company but caused a great loss to it. The respondent was charge-sheeted to which he replied that under the instructions of the Plant Superintendent he had flown the above-mentioned liquid. The defect in the enquiry on account of which the learned trial Judge set aside the order of dismissal and directed the re-instatement of the respondent is that first of all the statement of the respondent was recorded and he was subjected to searching questions by the Enquiry Officer and, thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the respondent was not re-recorded giving him opportunity to explain the material brought before him in the prosecution evidence. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since in answer to the charge-sheet, the respondent had…
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