Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2296 1989 SLD 2296 1989 PLC 605
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. GT-410 of 1988, decided on 29th January, 1989.
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

MUHAMMAD SALEEM MALIK

VS

AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, RAWALPINDI DIVISION and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)-- ---S. 2(1)(b)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 1(4)(2) (xxviii)-­Civil servant--Workman--Unit Supervisor in Engineering Wing of Agriculture Department letting Bulldozers to Zamindars on rent--a function which could be performed by any person--was not employed in the affairs of the State hence not covered by definition of "civil servant" vide S. 2 of Punjab Civil Servants Act; 1974--No evidence shown which indicated wages of employee in excess of Rs.800 per month--Admittedly no one was working under his supervision--Such employer, held was a workman. (b) Civil service-- --- Disciplinary action--Appeal--Charge-sheet issued by Appellate authority-­Appellate authority, in circumstances, held, incapacitated itself from hearing appeal and appeal made to next higher authority would be competent. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A--Grievance notice--Limitation--Establishment Rules providing remedy of appeal--Departmental appeal not disposed of--Workman serving grievance notice after waiting for a considerable time--Plea that grievance notice was time-­barred, repelled--Held: Since departmental appeal was not disposed of, no period of limitation had started and in peculiar circumstances grievance notice was not time-barred. (d) Industrial dispute-- --- Domestic enquiry--Statement of accused--Purpose--To afford such accused opportunity to explain material brought against him by prosecution, his statement has to be recorded--Statement of accused recorded during prosecution evidence and not after close of `prosecution evidence, would prejudice such accused. (e) Industrial dispute- --- Domestic enquiry--Cross-examination of prosecution evidence--Opportunity. not given to accused--Effect--Statement of accused not recorded as to whether he did not want to produce evidence--Accused, held, was condemned un-heard and consequential dismissal order not sustainable. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Mirza Nazir Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1989. JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 8-10-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding…
🔒
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