Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1611 1989 SLD 1611 1989 PLC 866
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-399 of 1980, decided on 23rd January, 1989.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Narain Das for Appellant. Latif Saghar for
Respondent.

KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

VS

TAJ BAREEN

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V I of 1968)-- ---S.Os. 15(1), 15(3) & 15(4)--Charge-sheet mentioning negligence and carelessness resulting in accident of bus causing deaths and financial loss-, Charge, held, did not amount to misconduct warranting dismissal from service but at the most could entail penalty of fine. Industrial dispute-- ----Domestic enquiry--Pendency of criminal proceedings--No bar to findings of domestic enquiry and consequential action by employer. 1980 P L C 777 rel. DECISION This appeal is directed against the order, dated 9-1-1985, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27-12-1983, the respondent, who was employed as Driver with the appellants was directed to take out Bus No. 830­519 from the Depot for test by Mr. Zahiruddin, A.W.M. Incharge. The bus was driven to Thatta and then back to Karachi. On the drive back near Gharo, an accident took place against another vehicle: in which 2 persons sitting into bus including Mr. Zahiruddin and 2 persons sitting in the other vehicle died. The respondent was charge-sheeted and after domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and consequently he was dismissed from service. After serving grievance notice, the respondent filed grievance petition which was allowed by the learned Labour Court. An appeal bearing No. KAR-70/85 was filed against the impugned order which was decided by this Tribunal on 5-2-1986 setting aside the order of the learned Labour Court. This decision was challenged by the respondent in the High Court at Karachi in Constitutional Petition No. D-198 of 1986. Their Lordships set aside the decision of this Tribunal on the ground that notice has not been properly served upon the respondent, who, therefore, did not get an opportunity to be heard and the appeal was remanded back for re-hearing. 3. I have heard Mr. Narain Das, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.…
🔒
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