1984 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus PUNJAB URBAN TANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus PUNJAB URBAN TANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑, ‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑Enquiry notice not proved to have been served upon accused‑Because of no knowledge accused could not appear and defend‑Enquiry, in circumstances, held, not legal and no punish ment could be awarded on basis of such enquiry‑Punishment of dismissal from service, in circumstances, held, amounted to condemnation without being heard hence rule of audi alteram partem applied vitiating whole proceeding including punishment order: |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑, ‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑Enquiry notice not proved to have been served upon accused‑Because of no knowledge accused could not appear and defend‑Enquiry, in circumstances, held, not legal and no punish ment could be awarded on basis of such enquiry‑Punishment of dismissal from service, in circumstances, held, amounted to condemnation without being heard hence rule of audi alteram partem applied vitiating whole proceeding including punishment order: as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus PUNJAB URBAN TANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Farooq for Appellant.
- Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Held: It was not merely a technical defect hence back benefit also allowed by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑Enquiry notice not proved to have been served upon accused‑Because of no knowledge accused could not appear and defend‑Enquiry, in circumstances, held, not legal and no punish ment could be awarded on basis of such enquiry‑Punishment of dismissal from service, in circumstances, held, amounted to condemnation without being heard hence rule of audi alteram partem applied vitiating whole proceeding including punishment order:-- Held: It was not merely a technical defect hence back benefit also allowed by Appellate Tribunal. Khalid Farooq for Appellant. Asghar Mahmood for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st October, 1983. The titled appeal emerges from the decision, dated 16th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court. No. 1, Lahore, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service, but back benefits were not allowed for the reason that he had succeeded only on technical ground. The appellant has in this appeal claimed back benefits.
2. The learned lower Court has clearly held that service of enquiry notice Exh. R‑5 was not established, inasmuch as the postal receipt or A/D receipt had not been produced and RW‑2 dispatch clerk had categorically said that the said notice was not entered in the dispatch register. Since enquiry notice had not been served, the appellant had no knowledge, of the date of enquiry and thus could not appear to defend himself. The enquiry was thus not legal and no punishment could be awarded on the basis of such an enquiry. The appellant was condemned unheard. The rule of audi alteram pratem applies and the whole proceedings including the dismissal order stood vitiated. It was not, therefore, merely a technical defect. If the appellant had been afforded opportunity to stand the enquiry, he may have proved that he did not remain absent without leave. He thus is entitled to back benefits also.
3. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court allow back benefits to the appellant. A. E. Appeal accepted.