| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1373 1990 SLD 1373 1990 PLC 378 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos. QSA-228 and QSA-240 of 1989, decided on 2nd May, 1989.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Khurshid Ahmad Mian for Appellant. A.B. Malik for
Respondent.
Appeals Nos. QSA-228 and QSA-240 of 1989, decided on 2nd May, 1989.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Khurshid Ahmad Mian for Appellant. A.B. Malik for
Respondent.
GENERAL MANAGER, BISVIL SPINNERS LTD.
VS
TARIQ HABIB GENERAL MANAGER, BISVIL SPINNERS LTD. vs TARIQ HABIB
Law:
Section:
Industrial dispute-- ---Ex parte enquiry proceedings---Workman who himself had boycotted enquiry proceedings without any just cause, pleaded that Enquiry Officer was not justified in holding ex parte enquiry as neither he had cross-examined prosecution witnesses nor produced any defence---Plea raised by workman thus could not benefit him as he himself was responsible for not availing opportunity of cross-examining witnesses and producing defence. JUDGMENT The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated. 26-2-1989 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby Mr. Tariq Habib (hereinafter called as the respondent) has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has by his appeal, claimed back benefits whereas the General Manager, Bisvil Spinners Limited (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement. 2. Since the appeals captioned above emerge from the same order, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he had abused and threatened the Weaving Master Mr. Ghulam Rasul Butt. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance petition was incompetent as it had not been presented by the respondent himself. Since this plea was not taken before the learned lower Court, therefore, the parties had not produced any evidence. On 21-7-1983 the respondent had appeared in person to pursue his case in the learned lower Court and if on the said date still there was period of limitation available, the presentation became legal but since there is no evidence, the point cannot be finally decided. 4. The learned lower Court has on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not justified in holding ex parte enquiry, directed the reinstatement of the respondent. In the very grievance petition it is mentioned that after reading notice in the newspaper he went to the mills but was not allowed to enter into it and to participate in the enquiry. Thus the respondent had the knowledge of the date of the enquiry. The statement…
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