1991 PLP 736 (PLC(CS))
SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD Versus NOOR BUX
| Citation | 1991 PLP 736 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD Versus NOOR BUX |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 736 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 736 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 736 (PLC(CS)) (SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD Versus NOOR BUX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Races M. Mushtaque for Appellant.
- S. Fasahat H. Rizvi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1990.
- 2. 1 have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Employer challenged reinstatement of employee ordered by‑Labour Court‑‑‑Main ground that weighed with Labour Court was that Enquiry Officer had gone beyond record of inquiry and made some personal inquiries from some other persons and based his findings on such inquiries‑‑ Nothing existed on record to show that other persons from whom Enquiry Officer made inquiries were tendered for cross‑examination‑‑‑Findings of Enquiry Officer on basis of such inquiry, held, could not be considered as fair and just and order of termination based on such report was not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
S. Fasahat H. Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1990. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-9-1989 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, VIth Sindh Labour Court at Hyderabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. 2. 1 have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 7th January, 1988 the services of the respondent were terminated on the ground that he had misbehaved with Yard Master, after holding due enquiry. The respondent after serving grievance notice upon the appellants had filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. 4. The main ground that appears to have weighed with the learned Presiding Officer was that the Enquiry Officer had gone beyond the record of enquiry and made some personal enquiries from some other person and based his findings on such enquiries. There is nothing on record to show that the other persons from whom the Enquiry Officer made enquiry were tendered for cross examination. The findings of the Enquiry officer on the basis of such enquiry cannot be considered as fair and just, and order of termination based on such I report is not sustainable. 5. For the above reasons, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the appeal. The amount of back benefits if lying in the Tribunal be released to the respondent after due verification. M.Y.H./1790/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.