Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 2038 1985 SLD 2038 1985 PLC 648
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-355 of 1984, decided on 11th 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

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

VS

RIAZ HUSSAIN

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ----S. 35-Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court-Court of locality where part of cause of grievance arose also has jurisdiction- National Bank employee serving at Faisalabad- Impugned order issued by Head Office at Lahore-Labour Court at Lahore, in circumstances, held, also had jurisdiction. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- --Ss. 25-A & 38-D---Jurisdiction of Labour Court in case of Bank employee-Wage Commission Award-An award for purpose of Ordinance including S. 25-A-Labour Court, held, competent to redress wrong done to Bank workers by infringing rights guaranteed by such award. Javed Altaf for Appellant. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th November, 1934. JUDGMENT The decision dated 6th May, 1984 passed by the leaned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby punishment of stopping of increment for two years and disallowing the wages for the period he remained suspended was set aside and he was allowed consequential benefits. 2. There were two allegations of misappropriation of money. According to charge-sheet Exh. P. 1, the respondent is alleged to have received Rs. 1,500 but entered the amount in duplicate receipt as 150 only and that he received Rs. 637.50 but entered the amount in duplicate receipt as Its. 37.50 only. The respondent was punished holding that he had during the enquiry admitted the misappropriations. A perusal of the statement of the respondent made before the Enquiry Officer in question­ and-answer form shows that he was not shown the duplicate receipts, therefore, he said that without seeing the said documents he could not say if he had executed the same or not. No evidence was produced to prove that the respondent had issued the duplicate receipts and entered the amounts in them as Rs. 150 and Rs. 37.50 instead of Rs. 1,150 and Rs. 637.50, respectively. So the charge was not established. 3. It has been argued that Faisalabad Labour Courts and not Labour Court No. 2, Lahore had territorial jurisdiction. The argument has no force. Where part .of cause of grievance arises the Courts…
🔒
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