Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1920 1985 SLD 1920 1985 PLC 522
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-368 of 1984, decided on 16th February, 1985.
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

PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD

VS

NISAR AHMAD

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)----- ---S.O.15(4)--Charge-sheet, issuance of--Limitation--One month from commission of alleged misconduct or from date employer gets information of misconduct--Bus conductor alleged to have misappropriated fare by not issuing tickets to passengers--T.T.40 Form mentioning misconduct placed before District Manager competent to order punishment subsequently--Limitation, in circumstances, held, started from date District Manager got information on receipt of T . T . 40 Form and not from date of checking. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---Ss.25-A, 36& 38(3)--Practice and procedure--Grievance petition against dismissal from service for misconduct--Labour Court duty bound to see if petitioner had made out a case for re-instatement--Counsel for employer not possessing power-of-attorney and written statement not signed by employer--Such reasons, held, not sufficient grounds for passing re-instatement order--Misconduct of petitioner proved on record--Labour Court, in circumstances, held, wrongly directed re­instatement--Order of Labour Court set aside, dismissal order restored and grievance petition dismissed by Appellate Tribunal. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Malik Ghulam Rasool for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th February, 1985. JUDGMENT The decision, dated 29-5-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. 2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had recovered bus fare from two passengers but had not issued tickets 'to them and that another passenger was travelling without ticket from whom no fare had been realised. The learned lower Court has directed the re-instatement of the respondent on the grounds that the charge-sheet was time-barred, that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had no power-of-attorney and that the written statement was not signed by the District Manager. 3. It has been argued that from the date on which the employer got information the…
🔒
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