1976 PLP 659 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD RASHEED Versus KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1976 PLP 659 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IInd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHEED Versus KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS, RAWALPINDI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 659 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 659 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IInd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 659 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD RASHEED Versus KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rashid for Appellant.
- Bilal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Domestic enquiry-Evidence-Charge admitted in answer to first show-cans: notice-Production of prosecution witness not essential Contention that inquiry was not held properly due to non-production of witness, in circumstances, rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 227 of 1975, decided on 13th June 1975. -- Domestic enquiry-Evidence-Charge admitted in answer to first show-cans: notice-Production of prosecution witness not essential Contention that inquiry was not held properly due to non-production of witness, in circumstances, rejected. Abdul Rashid for Appellant. Bilal for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 25-4-75 passed the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., for re-instatement by the appellant. petition was dismissed, so he has filed this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length go through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as impugned order. Admittedly appellant remained absent from duty for 140 days intermittently from 1-10-73 to 30-9-74. He was charge sheeted in his explanation he also admitted his guilt through Exh. RA/1 stating there that his father died, his brother met with an accident and ultimately met the same fate. His sister also died during this period. In answer to the questions of the enquiry officer, be has explained only absence for 70 days but other 70 days there is no explanation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that enquiry into the guilt of the appellant was not held properly. The enquiry officer examined no prosecution witness. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the argu ments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. After admission of the appellant in answer to his first show-cause notice there was no need to produce any witness. Learned Presiding Officer. Junior, Labour Court rightly passed an order rejecting the petition of the appellant. I also maintain it and dismiss the appeal.