1984 PLP 1230 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD.
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1230 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1230 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1230 (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 1230 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Tariq Mosood for Appellant.
- M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (f)‑Misconduct‑View that only habitual negligence of duty amounts to misconduct‑Not approved‑Sleeping during duty hours away from place of duty‑Amounts to misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (f)‑Misconduct‑View that only habitual negligence of duty amounts to misconduct‑Not approved‑Sleeping during duty hours away from place of duty‑Amounts to misconduct. Kh. Tariq Mosood for Appellant. M. S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1984. The above‑captioned appeal challenges the decision, dated 6th February, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore to the extent the appellant has not been allowed back benefits.
2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service was that during night shift he left the place of his duty situated on the first floor, went to ground floor and slept there from 9‑30 to 11‑301 p. m. when he was awakened. The learned lower Court has found that the allegation was not established and that even if the evidence led by the respondent be believed, the allegation did not constitute misconduct. I do ,q not find myself in agreement with the learned Presiding Officer to his observation that only habitual negligence of duty is misconduct but since he had found that no allegation was proved, he could have disallowed back benefits to the appellant for some other reason. No reason has been given. If misconduct was not established, then the dismissal was illegal and the appellant was entitled to back benefits also. Since the respondent has not appealed against the direction of re‑instatement, I am not in a position to consider if the allegation was proved. However, as the case was not finally decided soon and was remanded for redecision, the respondent may not be burdened with the payment of full back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is allowed 50 per cent back benefits. A. E. Appeal accepted.