1989 (PLP)
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus LIAQAT ALI
| Citation | 1989 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus LIAQAT ALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 (PLP)?
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: 1989 (PLP) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus LIAQAT ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zia Ullah for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (JOLIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Domestic enquiry cannot be held without service of charge sheet‑‑Service of charge‑sheet not proved‑‑Disciplinary proceedings, held, vitiated‑‑Order of Labour Court setting aside impugned dismissal order awarding reinstatement without back benefits, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Relations Ordinance (JOLIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Domestic enquiry cannot be held without service of charge sheet‑‑Service of charge‑sheet not proved‑‑Disciplinary proceedings, held, vitiated‑‑Order of Labour Court setting aside impugned dismissal order awarding reinstatement without back benefits, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Zia Ullah for Appellant. Date of hearing: 9th August, 1984. The above‑captioned appeal challenges the decision dated 20‑6‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service without back benefits.
2. The only ground on which the direction of reinstatement has been given is that service of charge‑sheet has not been proved. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the charge‑sheet was delivered to the respondent. No copy of publication of the charge‑sheet is on the file. Likewise, no postal or A/D receipt or any other receipt taken from the respondent in token of service of charge‑sheet can be found on the record. Ex.R‑3 can be said to be a charge‑sheet but it was not proved that it was delivered to the respondent. Exs. R‑4 and R‑5 are not charge‑sheets but it is mentioned herein that the charge sheet has been issued and no reply has been filed. None of the two witnesses examined by the appellant before the learned lower Court said that they had A personally served any charge‑sheet. Since the charge‑sheet was not served, no enquiry could legally be held and all the remaining proceedings are vitiated. The impugned direction of reinstatemnt recorded by the learned lower Court, therefore, is correct and there is no scope to interfere with it.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. A.E./1092/Lb, P Appeal dismissed.