1992PLC16 (PLP)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
| Citation | 1992PLC16 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992PLC16 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992PLC16 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992PLC16 (PLP) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Awais for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Employee was dismissed from service on charge of theft
Enquiry report was not produced before Labour Court to show that proper opportunity had been afforded to employee to defend himself or that sufficient evidence was available against him to prove charge of theft
Employee was also tried by Criminal Court on same allegation, but was acquitted
Tribunal had rightly set aside order of employee's dismissal from service and reinstated him with back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aslam, a Petrol Pump Attendant was served with a charge sheet for stealing diesel oil. A criminal case was also got registered against him. An inquiry was conducted against him and he was found guilty and in consequence was dismissed from service on 23-6-1988. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.], Lahore. Punjab Road Transportation Corporation contested the petition. After recording evidence the Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition on 17-1-1991. Muhammad Aslam respondent preferred an appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore which was accepted on 31-3-1991 and he was ordered to be reinstated with back benefits. hence this writ petition hy P.R.T.C.
2. It is contended that the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is based on misreading of evidence and it did not appreciate that the sealing diesel oil stood established against Muhammad Aslam respondent. 3. 1t is an admitted position that the respondent was acquitted from the criminal case but on the same allegations he was dismissed from service on the basis of departmental inquiry. The allegation against the petitioner was that some diesel was found in the Tanker which had earlier been checked by him declared to be empty. The Labour Appellate Tribunal observed that the respondent was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself as the inquiry officer had admitted that he had not allowed him the services of another assistant to represent him.
4. The inquiry report was not produced before the Labour Court to show that proper opportunity had been afforded to the respondent to defend himself or that sufficient evidence was available against him to prove the charge of theft. As already stated above he was also tried by the Criminal Court on the same allegation and was acquitted. 5.In the above circumstances, the Labour Appellate Tribunal had rightly set aside the order of the respondent's dismissal from service and re-instated him with back benefits. Finding absolutely no illegality or any jurisdictional defect, I see no. ground to interfere with the impugned order and in consequence dismiss the writ petition in limine. H.B.T./P-2/L Petition dismissed.