1982 PLP 965 (SCMR)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 965 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. O. 15(4) as amended by Act (XI of 1976)-Amendment, effect of-Worker-Dismissal-Misconduct-Service of notice-Misconduct taking place long before enforcement of amendment in S. O. 15(4) Amendment not retrospective in operation, held, could not operate so as to affect cases relating to period before amendment brought into force.-Interpretation of statutes |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), (a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V1 of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 965 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), (a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V1 of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 965 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. O. 15(4) as amended by Act (XI of 1976)-Amendment, effect of-Worker-Dismissal-Misconduct-Service of notice-Misconduct taking place long before enforcement of amendment in S. O. 15(4) Amendment not retrospective in operation, held, could not operate so as to affect cases relating to period before amendment brought into force.-Interpretation of statutes bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 965 (SCMR) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 1st December, 1980.
- Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment 'dated 4-7-1979, passed by Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 5620 of 1978). -- S. O. 15(4) [as amended by Act (XI of 1976)]-Amendment, effect of-Worker-Dismissal-Misconduct-Service of notice-Misconduct taking place long before enforcement of amendment in S. O. 15(4) Amendment not retrospective in operation, held, could not operate so as to affect cases relating to period before amendment brought into force.-[Interpretation of statutes] -- S. O. 15(4)-Worker-Dismissal-Petitioner a fitter driving a bus and killing a boy of seven years-Contention that he could not be saddled with responsibility for killing and as such charge not standing proved against him, held, has no force-Petitioner charged -for driving out a bus being a Fitter and charge proved-Dismissal order, held, proper.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Mushtaq Ahmad employed under the respondent as Fitter drove out a bus without any authorization on the 1st of March, 1975. He met with an accident and killed a seven years' old boy. He was charged‑sheeted, an inquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service on 25‑7‑1975. He felt aggrieved and moved an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which was dismissed on 6‑3‑1978. An appeal, however, against this order was accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 19‑11‑1978 by which the decision of the Labour Court was set aside and the appellant was directed to be re instated with back benefits. A writ petition was filed against it by the District Manager which was accepted by a judgment of the Lahore High Court on 4‑7‑1979. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. It was submitted that section 15(4)of the West Pakistan Industrial and, Commercial Employment (Standing. Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as it originally stood, only provided that no order of dismissal shall be made until he has been informed of the alleged misconduct and is equally free to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The words "within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer" were introduced by and Amendment made by Act XI of 1976. Since in the present case the Notice was not served within one month, no action could have been taken against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that this amendment was retrospec tive in operation and since in the present case the misconduct took place on the 1st of March, 1975, that is to say, long before the 23rd December, 1975 when the amendment was made, it cannot be said to be operative so as to affect the cases relating to period before the Amendment was brought into force. We have no reason to differ with the High Court on this point.
3. It was further submitted that the charge against the petitioner was that he took the bus as a Fitter and killed a boy, but he could not be saddled with the responsibility for the killing and, therefore, the charge did not stand proved against him. The charge was that be is a Fitter and not driver but in spite of it he drove the bus out and this has admittedly been proved. There is, therefore, no merit in this submission either. The petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.