| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 2032 1985 SLD 2032 1985 PLC 640 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-396 of 1983, decided on 26th November, 1984,
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. FD-396 of 1983, decided on 26th November, 1984,
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
LIAQAT ALI
VS
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)------- ----Ss. 25-A & 38-D--Wage Commission Award-An award for purposes of Ordinance-Infringement of rights guaranteed by such Award can be redressed by Labour Court under S. 25-A. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- -- Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25-A-Dismissed person - Continues to be a workman and can seek redress under S. 25-A-Persons on account of whose dismissal, termination etc. on industrial dispute has been brought or who have been dismissed or terminated on account of raising an industrial dispute though included in definition of "workman" but this provision is for those who are otherwise out of pole of "workman" such as supervisors getting pay more than Rs. 800 per mensem and those performing managerial duties. P L D 1982 S C 113 rel. Appellant in person. Mian Irshad Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing:18th November, 1984. JUDGMENT The decision dated 25th May, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed. On behalf of the respondent cross objections have been filed, which are being decided alongwith the appeal. 2. The appellant was a messenger/peon. On the allegation of misconduct he was charge-sheeted and after holding an enquiry was dismissed from service. The enquiry proceedings show that the appellant was neither afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the respondent, nor was allowed to examine any witness in defence. In spite of these defects the learned lower Court says that the enquiry was properly held. With different ink afterwards a note was added to the effect that opportunity for cross-examination was given but the witnesses were not cross-examined. If after recording the examination-in-chief of the witnesses, such a note had been given, the note would have been in the same ink and had been put in the new para. Since at the end, the signatures of the witnesses and of enquiry officer were appearing, there was no space to give the note in the new paras., therefore, in the same…
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