1989 PLP 225 (PLC)
DISTRICT MANAGER P.R.T.C. (I.C.) R.R. FAISALABAD Versus WAMUHAMMAD ASIAM
| Citation | 1989 PLP 225 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER P.R.T.C. (I.C.) R.R. FAISALABAD Versus WAMUHAMMAD ASIAM |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 225 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 225 (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: 1989 PLP 225 (PLC) (DISTRICT MANAGER P.R.T.C. (I.C.) R.R. FAISALABAD Versus WAMUHAMMAD ASIAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sajjad Hussain Bokhari for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Alleged misconduct brought to notice of accused workman not within limitation period of 30 days and even no enquiry held‑ Charge‑sheet, held, was time‑barred‑‑Labour Court, held, rightly set aside dismissal order. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Outturn of employee being below average
Held, did not amount to misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Alleged misconduct brought to notice of accused workman not within limitation period of 30 days and even no enquiry held‑ Charge‑sheet, held, was time‑barred‑‑Labour Court, held, rightly set aside dismissal order. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Outturn of employee being below average
Held, did not amount to misconduct. Sajjad Hussain Bokhari for Appellant. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 14‑6‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad whereby accepting the grievance petition of the respondent he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that his out turn for the month of November, 1986 was below the target. The grounds on which the learned lower A Court has reinstated the respondent are that the misconduct should have been brought to the notice of the respondent within 90 days and that no enquiry was held against him. The period within which misconduct is to be brought to the notice of the employee concerned is 30 days and not 90 days. It means that the B charge‑sheet was time‑barred. Since no enquiry was held the learned lower Court rightly set aside the dismissal order. I go a step further and say that the allegation made against the respondent did not amount to misconduct. His outturn may be C due to inefficiency but does not amount to misconduct. Since no misconduct was I committed, back benefits were rightly awarded.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./417/Lb. P
1. Appeal dismissed.