Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1583 1993 SLD 1583 1993 PLC 926
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. OSA-654 of 1985, decided on 23rd December, 1985.
SARDAR MOHAMMAD 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

MANAGING DIRECTOR, SURAJ G14EE INDUSTRIES LTD., SHEIKHUPURA

VS

ILAM DIN

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute--- ----Domestic enquiry---Purpose of finding out alleged offence and to afford proper opportunity to accused to explain material brought against him on record by prosecution evidence is not merely to get misconduct admitted by accused---Where no evidence of prosecution was recorded and statement of only accused was obtained, charge, held, remained unproved. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.2(i)---"Worker"---Security Guard---Duties involving opening and closing of gate and physical checking incoming and outgoing vehicles---A worker. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---Dismissal for misconduct---Enquiry defective---Permission for fresh enquiry is discretion of Court. Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Appellant. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985. JUDGMENT The decision dated 19-11-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service has been accepted with back benefits holding him as a workman. 2. The respondent is a Security Guard. He is alleged to have allowed the exit of a wagon carrying defective empty containers without gate-pass or permission. As the goods were excisable, the excise staff captured the wagon and challaned the Manager for evasion of the payment of excise duty. The respondent was charge-sheeted and inquiry notice was served upon him. No inquiry proceedings are on the file but the respondent said in his statement that inquiry was held in which only his statement was recorded, but no prosecution witness was examined. Inquiries are held not for getting the misconduct admitted by the workers concerned but for finding out if they have committed the offence and to afford him proper…
🔒
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