1984 PLP 1192 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1192 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1192 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1192 (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 1192 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. R. Haider for Appellant.
- Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 29th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus Conductor's case‑Re-issue of used tickets‑Tickets punched for destination different from that for which holders travelling‑No dispute that destination of passengers given on such tickets was different‑Non‑production of disputed tickets before Labour Court, in circumstances, held, immaterial and order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition upheld by Appellate Tribunal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Judgment & Decree
H. R. Haider for Appellant. Asghar Mahmood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 29th November, 1983. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 14th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.
2. The allegation against‑the appellant was that he had ‑ issued three used tickets and had realised fare at the rate of 50 paisas per head, misappropriating the amount to his own use, The plea of the appellant was that tickets were not used but due to insufficient light in the bus he had not been able to properly punch them. Not only that the tickets were already punched, but the destination for which the tickets had been previously issued was different from the ones to which their holders were travelling. This shows that the tickets were used and had been re‑issued. The appellant misappropriated the fare recovered on those tickets. No doubt the said used tickets were not produced before the learned lower Court but it makes no difference because the plea of the appellant is not that the destination of the passengers given on them was not different than the ones to which their holders were travelling. If this plea had been raised, of course, in order to varify the destination the presence of the tickets on the record would have been necessary. The appellant was thus rightly dismissed and his grievance petition disallowed.
3. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal being without force is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.