Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1926 1991 SLD 1926 1991 PLC 301
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. 314 and 324 of 1989, decided on 22nd March, 1990.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellants. Sattar Muhammad Awan and Messrs Hamid Hussain & Co. for
Respondents.

AKHTAR ALI HUR and another

VS

Messrs TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI and another AKHTAR ALI HUR and another vs Messrs TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---Inquiry proceedings---Enquiry Officer is not required to write down statements in his own handwriting---Enquiry Officer admitted that depositions of witnesses were not recorded in his handwriting but were recorded probably by Stenographer but each page of enquiry proceedings was signed by Enquiry Officer as well as by worker who admittedly did not raise any objection with regard to this procedure---Held, such admission by Inquiry Officer would not affect result of inquiry. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---Inquiry report---Delay in submission cannot vitiate inquiry report--­Inquiry report had to be submitted within ten days under the relevant rules unless period was enhanced by competent Authority---Inquiry report was submitted nearly within period of two years and competent Authority had accepted same--­Rules, however, did not provide for any consequence if report was not submitted within specified period---Said provision was as such directory and not mandatory---Competent Authority by accepting report after expiry of specified period, would be deemed to have enhanced time for submission of report---Held, inordinate delay would not vitiate inquiry report in circumstances. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)---Dismissal---Worker was dismissed four service as a result of domestic inquiry wherein he was found guilty of misconduct for continuous unauthorised absence for two years from duty and at last reporting for duty with a medical certificate---Record showed that neither Enquiry Officer was clear in his mind as to for what period of unauthorised absence inquiry was being held against worker, nor punishing authority was aware of period of absence proved against worker while awarding punishment---Fact whether absence was wilful or without permission was not free from doubt--­Neither Inquiry Officer had applied his mind fully to facts of case while holding worker guilty nor punishing authority was fully aware of facts of case while…
🔒
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