1976 PLP 24 (PLC)
MUKHTAR HASSAN Versus ISLAMABAD OMNIBUS SERVICE
| Citation | 1976 PLP 24 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUKHTAR HASSAN Versus ISLAMABAD OMNIBUS SERVICE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 24 (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 1976 PLP 24 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 24 (PLC) (MUKHTAR HASSAN Versus ISLAMABAD OMNIBUS SERVICE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sadiq Variach for Appellant.
- Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 36-D-Dismissal due to misconduct-Junior Labour Court upholding dismissal--Appeal pressed on contention that Inquiry Officer was not produced as a witness before Junior Labour Court Inquiry Officer had also been dismissed and was not likely to depose in favour of Management-Appearance of Inquiry Officer as witness, held, not necessary legally-Petitioner, in circumstances, held, could himself produce Inquiry Officer as his own wit, ass - Contention in circums tances, rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A & 36-D-Dismissal due to misconduct-Junior Labour Court upholding dismissal--Appeal pressed on contention that Inquiry Officer was not produced as a witness before Junior Labour Court Inquiry Officer had also been dismissed and was not likely to depose in favour of Management-Appearance of Inquiry Officer as witness, held, not necessary legally-Petitioner, in circumstances, held, could himself produce Inquiry Officer as his own wit, ass - Contention in circums tances, rejected. Muhammad Sadiq Variach for Appellant. Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 18-7-75 passed by learned Presiding Officer Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition filed under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. Petition was rejected; hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant was a Conductor of the respondent. In a raid on his bus 12 passengers were found ticketless, including 8 ladies passengers. All of them were found ticketless while discussing at Central Hospital stop. An enquiry was made into his misconduct and he was found guilty and was dismissed from service.
4. The only grievance of the appellant is that Mr. Gul Bahar, Enquiry Officer, was not produced as a witness before the Junior Labour Court. Under law it is not necessary but in the instant case it is stated that he has been dismissed from service and was not likely to depose in favour of the respondent. If this was the position, then appellant could himself produce his as his own witness. There is no force in this contention.
5. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in the appeal. Order of the Junior Labour Court is upheld and appeal is rejected.