Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 2323 1990 SLD 2323 1990 PLC 394
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 11 of 1980, decided on 31st October, 1988.
DEEDAR AHMED SOOMRO, PRESIDING OFFICER

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

1990 P L C 394 MUHAMMAD SALEEM

VS

KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute-- ---Domestic enquiry---Ex parte proceedings---Notice of enquiry sent by post on correct address---Envelope received back without any remarks to show that its receipt was refused---Inference, was drawn that accused employee was deliberately deprived of defence-opportunity. (b) Industrial dispute-- --- Domestic enquiry---Enquiry Officer examining only one witness of management---Neither person making report against the accused employee nor any other impartial witness examined;--No verdict was given as to whether accused was found guilty of alleged misconduct---Enquiry was conducted ex parte without proper notice to accused---Procedure adopted was indicative of mala fides on the part of Enquiry Officer--Enquiry being not in accordance with law was not sustainable and dismissal was thus illegal. Khalilur Rehman for Applicant. Gul Muhammad Soomro for Respondents. ORDER The applicant filed this application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 stating therein that he is a permanent workman employed by the respondent as mechanic in Central Workshop and he was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet No.602/CES/428/Admn/86, dated 24-6-1986 on the basis of complaint of the Works Manager North Karachi Depot. He submitted that even the record of the Corporation respondent shows that at the relevant time the applicant was present and remained present at his place of duty and there is nothing on the record of respondent to show or prove the absence of the applicant from his place of ditty at Central Workshop. He submitted that the charge-sheet is time-barred. He further submitted that he had fallen ill and it was on the record of the Corporation alongwith the medical certificate even then the Enquiry Officer conducted ex parte enquiry against him although notice of enquiry was not served on him and the notices were received back by the respondents unserved. Thereby he was deprived of opportunity to defend him. He requested the respondent to provide him chance to defend him, in reply to show-cause notice but he was not allowed any chance and the respondent dismissed him and the said dismissal is mala fide and colourful exercise of the authority. Being…
🔒
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