1970 PLP 46 (PLC)
TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1970 PLP 46 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Industrial Appellant Tribunal West Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 46 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 46 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Industrial Appellant Tribunal West Pakistan bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 46 (PLC) (TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Disputes Ordinance (LVI of 1959),
S. 31 and West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance (IV of 1968), S. 37 Dismissal on account of misconduct not connected with pending industrial dispute‑Industrial Court, held, has no jurisdiction to order re‑instatement, In circumstances of case. Sirajul Haq Qureshi for Appellant. Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th April 1969. This is an appeal under section 16 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1958. The respondent was conductor in the employ ment of G. T. S., Sukkur. His bus was checked on 6th November 1966. It was found that 26 passengers were travelling without tickets and that he had realised fares from them. He was charge sheeted for the same and dismissed after enquiry. The respondent made an application under section 31 of the Repealed Ordinance. The learned Industrial Court allowed the application and ordered his re‑instatement. It is contended by Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi, learned Representative for the appellant that as the respondent was dismissed on the ground of misconduct not connected with the Industrial Dispute there was no violation of section 37 of the Ordinance. The learned industrial Court therefore had no jurisdiction to order re‑instatement of the respondent. I have just now disposed of the appeal of driver Jiand Ali (Appeal No. S KR‑l43 of 1959) or similar point. No useful purpose can be served to repeat the observation in this appeal. I would, for the reason given therein, allow this appsal and dismiss the application of the respondent.