1984 PLP 940 (PLC(CS))
REHMAT ALI Versus PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 940 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI Versus PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 940 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 940 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 940 (PLC(CS)) (REHMAT ALI Versus PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif for Appellant.
- Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th August, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Statement of one witness recorded in absence of representative of accused workman‑Enquiry started not before time but representative arrived late‑Enquiry Officer, in circum stances, held, not bound to wait for him ‑ No defect vitiating enquiry. [
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Statement of one witness recorded in absence of representative of accused workman‑Enquiry started not before time but representative arrived late‑Enquiry Officer, in circum stances, held, not bound to wait for him ‑ No defect vitiating enquiry. [ Muhammad Hanif for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondents. Date of hearing : 9th August, 1983. The decision dated 9th February, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he came late and was called by the in charge,, whereupon he abused and assaulted him. Only two points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant during arguments. One is that the representative of the appellant was not awaited and the statement of first P. W. was recorded in the absence of the said representative. This is not the case of the appellant that the enquiry was started before time. If the representative of the appellant was late, .the enquiry officer was not bound to wait for him. So this is no defect to vitiate the enquiry The second point is that according to the >s. Ws. some other workers were standing at a distance at the time of the alleged incident but none of them was examined as a witness. Accord ing to the learned counsel, they were independent persons. The names of the said persons were not disclosed, nor any question was put for their non‑production. Since they were at some distance, they may not . have heard the actual abuses. Moreover, the appellant could have very well produced them as defence witnesses. The appellant gave application Exb. P. 3 that his defence witnesses be summoned by the enquiry officer. The enquiry proceedings do not show that the appellant had disclosed the names and particulars of his defence witnesses. In the absence of the particulars of the witnesses, the enquiry officer was not in a position to summon them. The appellant could have brought them with him as he had not provided their addresses. So the argument is devoid of force. By the evidence recorded during enquiry, the offence was duly proved. So, the appellant was rightly taken to task. He had no justification to abuse and assault his in charge. If no action is taken in such cases, the immediate officers would be unprotected and will not be able to keep the subordinates under control and to take work from them.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. A. E. Appeal dismissed.