Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 1133 1988 SLD 1133 1988 PLC 509
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-501 of 1985, decided on 21st January, 11986.
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

JAVAID AHMED

VS

PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-­ -Ss.25-A & 38(3)--Industrial dispute--Dismissal for misconduct-Bus conductor alleged to have realised fare without issuance of tickets-­'T-40 mentioning place of checking not falling in route specified for Bus--Labour Appellate Tribunal taking notice of discrepancy and observing that TT-40 prepared not at spot but afterwards in office--No evidence that Bus being plied on other route--Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside. Khalid Farooq for Appellant. Shamsul Haq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th January, 1986. JUDGMENT The decision dated 30-7-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.2 Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed. 2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had realised bus fare from two passengers but did not issue tickets and thus misappropriated the money. One passenger is alleged to have boarded the bus from Model Town and the other from Railway crossing and both were going to Railway Station Kot Lakhpat. The plea taken by the appellant in reply to the charge-sheet was that Kot Lakhpat Railway Station did not fall in route No.65 in 1980 when his bus was checked. PW-1 a clerk of the respondent produced duty roster Ex.P-1 dated 30-11-1980 and stated that in those days Railway Station Kot Lakhpat was not included in route No.65. In Tr-40 the place of checking is mentioned as Railway Station Kot Lakhpat. The respondent in his statement deposed that his bus was checked at Township and no irregularities were found. The learned lower Court has said that the checker had deposed that the appellant was using the board of route No.55, therefore, he did not consult the roster. This is wrong. In TT-40 and charge-sheet route is given as 65 and not 55. If the appellant had hung the board of route No.55, the checker would have mentioned that route and not a different one. The checkers are expected to know and they do know that a particular route is meant for…
🔒
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