Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 1289 1995 SLD 1289 1995 PLC 524
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 227(L) of 1994, decided on 16th November, 1994.
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

GHULAM HAIDER

VS

LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute--- ---- Domestic enquiry---Statement of employee alleging that no enquiry was held---Statement of employee alleged to have been recorded not bearing signature of Enquiry Officer---Enquiry report, in circumstances, held was not reliable. (b) Industrial dispute--- ----Domestic enquiry---Confessions by employee obtained by inducement or promise of pardon---Such confession, held, could not be spontaneous and acceptable. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25-A & 38(3)---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)---Misconduct--­Quantum/nature of punishment---Labour Court has no jurisdiction to change nature of punishment---Where findings were that order of conviction was justified punishment could not be changed by Labour Court---Prescribed punishment being the prerogative of employer. MA. Javed for Appellant. Abdul Hameed Cheema for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1986. JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 31-7-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad whereby the prayer of re-instatement in service was refused but the order of dismissal was converted into an order of simple termination entitling the appellant to the benefits such as provident fund gratuity etc. The appellant claims to be reinstated in service by setting aside the order of dismissal. 2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had remained absent on 22-9-1984, 26-9-1984, 2-11-1984, 12-11-1984, 13-11-1984, 27-11-1984, 7-12-1984, 28-12-1984, 14-1-1985, 19-1-1985, 13-2-1985, 21-2-1985, 5-6-1985, 7-6-1985 and 8-7-1985 but through collusion with the time keeper got his presence recorded in the record and received wages for the said period. On account of the above allegations Standing Order 15(3)(b) of Standing Orders Ordinance was applied. The appellant in answer to the charge-sheet did not accept the allegations and sought retirement on the ground that if he stood the inquiry, he would be disgraced in the eyes of his children and friends. Since the guilt was not admitted, an inquiry notice was sent 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