1984 PLP 1219 (PLC(CS))
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, FAISALABAD Versus SALEEM GUL
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1219 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, FAISALABAD Versus SALEEM GUL |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1219 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1219 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab 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 1219 (PLC(CS)) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, FAISALABAD Versus SALEEM GUL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javed Altaf for Appellant.
- S. M. Arif for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 13th December, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Statement of accused recorded in question answer‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced by not getting opportunity to say what he wanted to state and explain in defence.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Statement of accused recorded in question answer‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced by not getting opportunity to say what he wanted to state and explain in defence. Javed Altaf for Appellant. S. M. Arif for Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th December, 1983. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 11th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations were that the respondent absented himself without leave from 3rd May, 1980 to 30th May, 1980, and from 1st June, 1980 to 5th June, 1980 the date of charge‑sheet, and that he abused Barkat Ali, Guard on 31st May, 1980. The learned lower Court has directed the re‑instatement of the respondent for the reason that enquiry was not properly held by not recording the evidence by the Enquiry Officer himself and not allowing the respondent to cross‑examine the witnesses. The evi dence was recorded in questions‑answers. Prosecution witnesses may be examined in this manner but the mode of recording the statement of the respondent in questions‑answers was objectionable. As set questions were asked, the respondent did not get the opportunity to say what he wanted to say and to explain the material brought on the file in the prosecution evidence and thus he was prejudiced. This is wrong that opportunity of cross‑examination was not given. He was asked to cross‑examine the witnesses but he declined, as is apparent from the notes given at the end of the statements. The statement of Gul Muhammad, who is described as defence witness, was not relevant and may be ignored. The respondent stated that be did not want to examine any person in defence. In view of this statement, this is wrong to say that opportunity of defence was not given.
3. Whatever evidence was produced, the charge of absence was not established. There is no evidence so regarding absence, as no question could be put to the respondent in his statement. However, evidence is on the record regarding the allegation of abusing Barkat Ali, Guard. But since the statement of the respondent was not properly recorded giving him opportunity to say what he wanted to say he was, as observed above, prejudiced. So, the order of re‑instatement is justified.
4. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. As a result, the appeal is without force and is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.