1990 PLP 739 (PLC)
THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AKHTAR
| Citation | 1990 PLP 739 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AKHTAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 739 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 739 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 739 (PLC) (THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AKHTAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant.
- Muhammad Saleem Khan, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service on ground of his absence from duty‑‑‑Employee, applied for two years leave without pay, but no order was passed by employer on his application even after expiry of 18 days from its filing and employee became absent‑‑‑Employer contending that employee was duly informed about rejection of his leave application, failed to prove by producing any postal receipt that employee was in reality informed about rejection of his leave application ‑‑‑Neither any inquiry notice was issued to employee nor any inquiry was actually held‑‑‑Employee having been condemned unheard, Labour Court, held, was justified in setting aside order of dismissal of employee from service.
Judgment & Decree
The decision dated 6‑2‑1989 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits has been challenged in the appeal captioned above.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent applied for two years leave without pay on 14‑7‑1985. No order was passed upto 1‑8‑1985 when the respondent became absent. He is alleged to have been informed on 20‑8‑1985 vide R. 1 about the rejection of his leave. Anther letter dated 4‑9‑1985 is alleged to have been sent to the respondent informing him about the rejection of the leave and postal receipt of the same is Exh. R‑
4. The respondent did not join duty and on 15‑10‑1985 a show‑cause notice was got published in the newspaper cutting of which is Exh. R‑
8. On 16‑10‑1985 another publication was made, copy of which is Exh. R‑
9. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service. No enquiry notice was issued nor any enquiry was held. Exh. R‑4 is not the original postal receipt but a photo copy unattested and the seal of the postal office is not decipherable. The date is decipherable but when the seal is not decipherable, it is doubtful if the date given is the same which was impressed in the seal. Since there is no seal it cannot be said that in reality postal receipt was issued by the post office, and R. 4 is its copy, therefore, it does not stand proved that the respondent was in reality informed about the rejection of his leave application. The other defect is that no enquiry notice was sent to the respondent nor any enquiry was held. He, therefore, was condemned unheard. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal from service. The learned lower Court has allowed full back benefits rightly since the respondent had asserted in his statement that right from the date of removal from service he was jobless. Anyhow, the respondent has made a statement before me that he foregoes his back benefits for the period from the date of removal from service upto 31st of July, 1988. In view of this statement, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision back benefits from the date of dismissal upto 31st of July, 1988 are disallowed to the respondent. H.B.T./681/Lb. P Order accordingly.