1995 PLP 578 (PLC)
PRTB (Defunct through Managing Director, Lahore) and 2 others Versus HABIB AHMAD and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 578 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PRTB (Defunct through Managing Director, Lahore) and 2 others Versus HABIB AHMAD and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 578 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 578 (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: 1995 PLP 578 (PLC) (PRTB (Defunct through Managing Director, Lahore) and 2 others Versus HABIB AHMAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Sajjad Hussain for Appellants.
- Malik Ghulam Rasool for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th August, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition against reduction in pay‑‑‑Charge of illegal gratification against Checker‑‑‑Bus Conductor from whom illegal gratification was received not examined in enquiry‑‑‑No other ocular evidence produced‑‑‑Employee, held, could not be convicted and punished without any evidence‑‑‑In absence of Conductor's evidence there was no tangible evidence on record to convict employee‑‑‑Labour Court having rightly accepted grievance petition, Labour Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in such finding in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition against reduction in pay‑‑‑Charge of illegal gratification against Checker‑‑‑Bus Conductor from whom illegal gratification was received not examined in enquiry‑‑‑No other ocular evidence produced‑‑‑Employee, held, could not be convicted and punished without any evidence‑‑‑In absence of Conductor's evidence there was no tangible evidence on record to convict employee‑‑‑Labour Court having rightly accepted grievance petition, Labour Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in such finding in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Syed Sajjad Hussain for Appellants. Malik Ghulam Rasool for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th August, 1986. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 15‑2‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the order of the reduction of pay of the respondent to the initial stage of the post held by him has been set aside.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had received illegal gratification from Najmul Hasan, conductor while checking the bus conducted by the latter. It has been argued that Najmul Hasan, conductor, was not examined during the inquiry as prosecution witness as he too was charge sheeted for realising bus fare from the passengers and not issuing tickets to them. The argument has no force. If the appellant by its act disabled itself from producing necessary ocular evidence, it does not mean that the respondent could have been convicted and punished without any evidence. If the driver had the knowledge of the act alleged to have been committed by the respondent, he could be examined as a witness. The passengers in whose presence the respondent may have received illegal gratification from Najmul Hasan were the eye‑witnesses but they too were not examined. It has been argued that the statements of the passengers were recorded at the spot and were produced during the inquiry. Only Muhammad Afzal, whose statement is Exh. R‑4, had deposed something, but the remaining three passengers did not state anything on the point under controversy. Even Muhammad Afzal did not say that the amount of Rs.20 received by the checker was by way of illegal gratification. He even did not say that the said amount was received by the respondent. He did not name him in his statement recorded at the spot. Since the conductor was not examined, there was no tangible evidence on‑ the record to convict the respondent, and the learned lower Court thus rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. A.A./168/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.