1983 PLP 876 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHHMMAD HUMAYUN
| Citation | 1983 PLP 876 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHHMMAD HUMAYUN |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 876 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 876 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 876 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHHMMAD HUMAYUN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard), Prin ciple of‑Workman absenting without leave ‑ Absentee notice and charge‑sheet sent through registered post returned undelivered Ex parte enquiry held without sending enquiry notice Workman in circumstances, held, could have produced good cause for not attending to his duties had he been given enquiry notice‑Dismissal order based upon such ex parte enquiry, held, violation of principle of audi alteram partem being condemned unheard hence rightly set aside by Labour Court ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &
37. Sh. Aftab Ahmad for ‑Appellant. Data of hearing : 19th February, 1983.
Judgment & Decree
The P.R.T.B. has lodged this appeal against the decision dated 24‑6‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. 2, The allegation against the respondent was that he had absented himself without getting leave from 10‑6‑1980. He was sent. absentee notice by registered post which came back with the report of refusal. Charge‑sheet was sent to him on 28‑7‑1980 by registered post but that too was returned with the same report. After holding ex parte enquiry the respon dent was dismissed from service. No enquiry notice appears to have been sent as no evidence to that effect is on the record. No original enquiry notice nor any postal or A/D receipt is on the file. Since no enquiry notice was sent, the respondent could join the enquiry and to produce good cause of not attending to his duties. Rule of audialteram partem applies and since the respondent was condemned unheard, he was rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.
3. As upshot of the observations made, above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. . Appeal dismissed.