1984 PLP 1184 (PLC(CS))
LIAQAT HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1184 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LIAQAT HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1184 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1184 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1184 (PLC(CS)) (LIAQAT HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Awan for Appellant.
- Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 10th December, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Enquiry Officer changed without disclosing reason‑‑Prosecution evidence recorded by previous Enquiry Officer used by new Enquiry Officer without chance to note demeanour of witnesses‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced‑Punishment order based on findings of Enquiry Officer not completing enquiry himself, held, not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th December, 1983. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 16th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that when bus No. 4717 conducted by him was checked on 19th April, 1979 at Kot Chhutta, six passengers bound for D. G. Khan were holding tickets upto Hamidwala. Passengers, statement is marked Exh. R.
1. T. T‑40 is Exh. R. 1.
3. It has been argued that T. T. 40 was not issued at the spot inas much as only a note was recorded on it and it was prepared afterwards. It appears to be so but no prejudice was caused to the appellant because the contents of T. T. 40 are according to the note given on the margin meaning that no addition was made while preparing T. T.
40. No doubt, the signatures of the appellant do not appear on the passengers' statement marked R. 1 but the plea of the appellant is quite different. He said that six female beggars purchased tickets for Hamidwala and refused to get down there insisting that they wanted to go to Dera Ghazi Khan. The appellant could have examined any of the passengers travelling in the bus in support of his plea.
4. The real point on which the appeal succeeds is that previous enquiry officer was changed for the reasons not disclosed and the news enquiry officer did not record the prosecution evidence de novo. He took defence evidence of the appellant and relying upon the prosecution evidence recorded by his predecessor gave report against the appellant. The second enquiry officer had no chance to note the demeanours of the prosecution evidence, with the result that the appellant was prejudiced. The conviction and sentence passed on the report of the enquiry officer, who did not complete the enquiry himself is not sustainable.
5. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. Since the appellant has succeeded only on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits. A. E. Appeal accepted.