1986 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII d 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII d 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Abdul Hakim Awan for Appellant.
- Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th July. 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑--‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Fresh enquiry‑ Misconduct not proved‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, not justified in permitting employer to hold re‑enquiry while accepting grievance petition.
Judgment & Decree
Haji Abdul Hakim Awan for Appellant. Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th July. 1985. The decision dated 24‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant and permitted the respondent to hold inquiry against the appellant.
2. No ground is given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits to the appellant Likewise so far as according of permission to hold inquiry is concerned, no reason has been given. It was proved that intimation of cancellation of leave was conveyed to the appellant Only after two days of sanctioning the leave, it is alleged to have been cancelled. The appellant was relieved on 15th and he availed of leave with effect from 16‑9‑1982 meaning thereby that he remained on duty upto 15th and thus; was very much available for being informed about the cancellation of leave. Instead of being relieved, he should have been informed about the cancellation of leave and his signatures received on the intimation. This is not the case of the respondent that the appellant refused to put his signatures. Rather the case of the respondent is that verbal information was given. This is wrong that on 12 ‑9 ‑1982 leave was cancelled. It was cancelled on 16‑9‑1985 as is evident from Exh. R‑
2. Already the appellant had proceeded on leave, service was not established as held by the learned lower Court the appellant rightly availed of leave and was not absent. So no misconduct was committed and there was thus no occasion to permit holding of inquiry.
3. However, so far as back benefits are concerned firstly the appellant did not say that he remained jobless from the date of dismissal and secondly, the competent authority may himself decide the question.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the permission accorded by the learned lower Court for holding inquiry and the portion of the order whereby back benefits have been disallowed, I the respondent is directed to decide the question of entitlement of the appellant to back benefits. A. E. Appeal accepted.