1995 PLP 588 (PLC)
SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING, PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus HAMID HUSSAIN, COMPOSITOR
| Citation | 1995 PLP 588 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING, PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus HAMID HUSSAIN, COMPOSITOR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 588 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 588 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 588 (PLC) (SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING, PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus HAMID HUSSAIN, COMPOSITOR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nazir Hussain Mirza for Appellant
- Date of hearing: 9th September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Low outturn, held, amounted to inefficiency and not to misconduct‑‑‑Penalty of fine could be imposed for inefficiency‑‑‑Dismissal from service for alleged low outturn would be illegal‑‑‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits‑‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld b3 Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
The appeal captioned above, challenges the, decision dated 16‑6‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that his outturn was low. This allegation, even if correct, does not amount to misconduct either under Standing Order 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 or according to the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1962 amended up to 1970. Outturn may be low on account of the inefficiency of the respondent but inefficiency riot being a misconduct the order of dismissal could not be passed. Punishment for inefficiency is fine according to Standing Order 15(1). I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that according to Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, inefficiency amounts to misconduct. There is no provision; rather subsection (2) of section 4 provides minor penalties and not major penalty. It has been argued that at least back benefits should not have been allowed by the learned lower Court. The respondent deposed that he was jobless. He, therefore, has been rightly allowed back benefits. He remained jobless not for any fault of his but on account of the illegal order of dismissal from service.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./190/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.