1986 PLP 456 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD AYAZ
| Citation | 1986 PLP 456 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD AYAZ |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 456 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 456 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1986 PLP 456 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD AYAZ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Accused awarded minor punishment‑ Substitution of punishment of dismissal subsequently‑‑Illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985. The decision, dated 6‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑instatement in service was accepted with back benefits.
2. The respondent was charge‑sheeted for misappropriation of bus fare alleged to have been realised by him by not issuing tickets. This took place in 1978. After the lapse of sometime application under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for permission to punish the respondent was lodged. In the meantime, the respondent was charge -sheeted on account of commission of another misconduct and was dismissed. He was, however, directed in that case to be re‑instated in service. The order was carried out but the respondent was dismissed in the case started against him in 1978 showing that it was still pending. The application given under section 47 had before that been withdrawn. The plea of the respondent was that he was given punishment of warning, so could not be again punished with dismissal. The facts that application given under section 47 was afterwards withdrawn and yet the dismissal order was not passed, that the respondent was punished for the commission of a subsequent misconduct and not of the one alleged to have been committed by him in 1978, show that in reality the case brought against the respondent in 1978 was finished with minor punishment and when the punishment of dismissal awarded in a subsequent case was set aside by the Court, it was devised to get rid, off the respondent by removing the order of minor punishment such as warning from the reward and by illegally substituting punishment of dismissal.
3. I do not find any force that no opportunity was afforded to produce evidence on the point of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the respondent in 1978. The parties were given more than sufficient opportunity by granting many adjournments for the production of evidence and the parties themselves closed their case. The decision of the learned lower Court appears to be correct and thus unexceptional. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.