Law:

Section:

. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---Ss.25-A & 38(3)--Dismissal from service--Misappropriation-­Charge-sheet against appellant worker hopelessly barred by time and domestic inquiry conducted against him quite contrary to prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice--Appellant worker was not at all afforded reasonable opportunity either to cross-examine prosecution witness or to lead his defence in proper manner--Held, dismissal of appellant worker from service was quite improper, illegal and a victimization on account of his legitimate trade union activities-­Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition of worker set aside and worker re-instated in service with full back benefit. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 8-12-1986 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad, who has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O.-, 1969. 2. Brief fact9 of the case are that the appellant was a cashier and was posted at Saddar Branch of the respondent Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet No.679/85, dated 23-6-1983 and was suspended by letter dated 24-5-1983. He replied to the said charge sheet which was not found satisfactory and subsequently vide letter, dated 6-8-1983. One Munshi Khan alleged to be as enquiry officer called the appellant to appear before him for the enquiry and enquiry was alleged to have been conducted by him but no result thereon was communicated to the appellant. Then again on 23-10-1983, a letter was received by the appellant to appear before another enquiry officer namely, Faqir Muhammad Shaikh in regard to the same and similar allegations contained in the charge ­sheet dated 23-5-1983. The appellant claimed that this enquiry was also contrary to all provisions of law as well as principles of natural justice. It was further alleged by the appellant that the Enquiry Officer Munshi Khan, had first recorded his statement and name of the prosecution witness was examined before him nor was afforded an opportunity to cross was examined before him any witness and even the appellant was not permitted to lead his defence. It was…

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