1984 PLP 1062 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER Versus RAEES AHMAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1062 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER Versus RAEES AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1062 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1062 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: 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 1062 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER Versus RAEES AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 21st November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service for misconduct‑Bus conductor's case‑Charges (1) non issuance of tickets despite receipt of fare and (2) non‑issuance of tickets non‑realisation of fare‑Charge (1) not proved but charge; (2) proved‑Accused in circumstances, held, guilty of negligence and not of misconduct‑Re‑instatement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service for misconduct‑Bus conductor's case‑Charges (1) non issuance of tickets despite receipt of fare and (2) non‑issuance of tickets non‑realisation of fare‑Charge (1) not proved but charge; (2) proved‑Accused in circumstances, held, guilty of negligence and not of misconduct‑Re‑instatement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 21st November, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 20th August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated but back benefits were not allowed to him on the ground that he had succeeded on account of technical defects only.
2. The facts are that the bus of appellant was checked on 9th September, 1979 and it was found that he had realised fare from ten lady passengers, but had not issued tickets to them. There were seven teen other passengers, who were without tickets and no fare had been recovered from them. The learned lower Court directed the re‑instatement of the respondent on the ground that he was found guilty and dismissed on two charges, but one of those charges did not amount to misconduct. The learned lower Court rightly observed that the allegation that the respondent had neither recovered the fare from seventeen passengers, nor had issued tickets to them, did not amount to misconduct and at the most amounted to negligence or inefficiency. If the Inquiry Officer had not found the respondent guilty of the charge, which did not amount to misconduct, the employer may have prescribed punish ment short of dismissal. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent without back benefits. A.E. Appeal dismissed,