1977 PLP 405 (PLC)
DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER Versus MOHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN
| Citation | 1977 PLP 405 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunals |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER Versus MOHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 405 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 405 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunals.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 405 (PLC) (DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER Versus MOHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sirajul Haq for Appellants.
- Mohammad Akram Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑--Dismissal‑Re‑instatement Permanent employee of Road Transport Corporation dismissed without charge‑sheet and enquiry‑Labour Court, held, fully justified in ordering re‑instatement of such employee.
Judgment & Decree
‑--Dismissal‑Re‑instatement Permanent employee of Road Transport Corporation dismissed without charge‑sheet and enquiry‑Labour Court, held, fully justified in ordering re‑instatement of such employee. Sirajul Haq for Appellants. Mohammad Akram Khan for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court ordering re‑instate ment of the respondent.
2. The facts of the case are fully stated by the Labour Court and I need not repeat them. The respondent was a Fitter in the employment of the appellant. He had gone to Rawalpindi twice. He was said to have sent some applications for leave. On the first occasion he was allowed to resume his duties, but second time he was not allowed and his services were terminated. Aggrieved by this, he served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The respondent appeared in the witness‑boa and his cross‑examination was recorded but nobody on behalf of the appellant appeared on the adjour ned hearing. Thereafter several hearings took place but negligence was shown by the appellant by not appearing on most of the hearings and no evidence was led. Consequently, the evidence of the respondent which remained rebutted was accepted and he was ordered to be re‑instated. The dismissal was set aside on the ground that the respondent was dismissed without any show‑cause notice, charge‑sheet or inquiry.
3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It was the case of the respondent that he had gone to Rawalpindi and had made applications for leave. There is nothing on record to rebut the allegations. The respondent was a permanent employee and his services could not be terminated without charge‑sheet and inquiry. Thus the Labour Court was fully justified in setting aside the dismissal and ordering re‑instatement,