1989 PLP 255 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus HAKIM ALI
| Citation | 1989 PLP 255 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus HAKIM ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 255 (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 1989 PLP 255 (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 255 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus HAKIM ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Noor Hussain for Appellant.
- H.R. Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Removal from service‑‑Employee, a gangman, removed from service by verbal order on account of his alleged conviction for cutting a tree‑‑Employee reinstated by Labour Court‑‑Nothing on record showing that employer had discharged employee on account of being convicted in a criminal case Show- cause notice and discharge order neither served nor exhibited in evidence but only marked‑‑Employee as such was condemned unheard‑‑Order of reinstatement unheld‑‑Employee having in his statement deposed that he was jobless from date of removal from service, back benefits were also allowed to him on reinstatement.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Noor Hussain for Appellant. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the correctness of the decision dated 21‑4‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. Gujranwala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as gangman on 1‑1‑1964. According to him, he on account of cutting a tree belonging to the Forest Department was challaned and convicted and fined Rs.
352. On this ground the respondent is alleged to have been removed from service by an oral order. In the written statement it was admitted that the respondent was challaned but it is not admitted that he was fined and that on the ground he was either dismissed or his services were terminated. On the record are the show‑cause notice alleged to have been sent to the respondent for absence and discharged order on the ground that answer to the show‑cause notice was not satisfactory. However, this does not appear if the show‑cause notice and the discharge order were ever served upon the respondent. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had discharged the respondent on account of being convicted in a criminal case. As the show‑cause notice and the discharge order were not served and also were not exhibited in evidence and were only marked, the order of reinstatement appears to be correct. Wilful absence amounts to misconduct so mere service of show cause notice was not sufficient, unless reasons had been given that holding of inquiry was necessary. The respondent, therefore, was condemned unheard.
3. The learned lower Court, however, has not recorded any finding on the point if the grievance notice was served. In the written statement a clear-cut objection was raised that no grievance notice had been served. Anyhow, since a copy of the grievance notice Exh. P‑2, original postal receipt Exh. P‑3 and A.D. receipt Exh. P‑4 are on the record, it is apparent that the grievance notice was actually served. The date of the grievance notice is 15‑10‑1987 and the postal receipt bears the date as 17‑10‑1987. The date of receipt of notice given on the III A.D. receipt is 18‑10‑1987. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court has rightly set aside the order of termination from service.
4. Since the respondent has in his statement deposed that he was jobless l from the date of his removal from service, back benefits too were rightly allowed to him.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. M.Y.H./566/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.