1984 PLP 47 (PLC)
ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus RIASAT ALI
| Citation | 1984 PLP 47 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus RIASAT ALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 47 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 47 (PLC)?
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 47 (PLC) (ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus RIASAT ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Appellant.
- Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 12(5)‑Termination of service‑Non‑recording of witnesses' statements in inquiry on‑Allegation, respondent recovered fare from passengers without issuing tickets‑In inquiry statements of passen gers not recorded.‑Copy of form TT‑40 also not given on spot‑Held. in circumstances, respondent's re‑instatement in service justified.
Judgment & Decree
The appeal directed against the decision dated 14th December 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faislabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had recovered fare from two passengers going to Lhak No. 46 but had not issued tickets` to them. There were three other passengers going to Lalian from whom the respondent is alleged to have recovered the fare but had not issued tickets. The statements of the passengers were not recorded, with the result that whatever the checkers stated in this respect was hearsay. Obviously, the fare could be recovered by the respondent before the checking was done and the passengers could tell the checking party about it. Recording of the statement of the passengers therefore, was necessary. One of the checkers namely Amir Abdullah stated before the Enquiry Officer that the copy of form TT‑40 was not given to the respondent on the spot. No reason ha4B been given for not delivering the copy on the spot. Since the copy was not delivered, there were chances for the checking party to make additions in form TT‑40 after it was prepared and on it signatures of the respondents were received. In these circumstances, the Lower Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order and directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed,