1991 PLP 88 (PLC)
NOOR HAMID SHAH Versus NATIONAL PARTICLE BOARD (Pvt.) Ltd,
| Citation | 1991 PLP 88 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NOOR HAMID SHAH Versus NATIONAL PARTICLE BOARD (Pvt.) Ltd, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 88 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 88 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 88 (PLC) (NOOR HAMID SHAH Versus NATIONAL PARTICLE BOARD (Pvt.) Ltd,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant.
- Shareef Ahmed Malik for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1990.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shareef Ahmed Malik, learned counsel for the respondents and have also come through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Dismissal‑‑Absence from duty without intimation‑‑Appellant dismissed from service after domestic inquiry in which he was declared guilty‑‑Record showing that appellant had put no question to prosecution witnesses in cross -examination nor he did have any opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses nor respondent proved that appellant did not want to cross‑examine respondent's witnesses‑‑Held, it could not be concluded that inquiry was fair and proper without examining Inquiry Officer‑‑Order of dismissal of appellant set aside and case remanded to Labour Court with direction to decide case afresh after examining Enquiry Officer and after hearing parties again unprejudiced by its previous order.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant. Shareef Ahmed Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.1 Karachi, dated 24-9-1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shareef Ahmed Malik, learned counsel for the respondents and have also come through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant remained absent without intimation for more than ten days from 11-7-1987. He was charge sheeted on 25-7-1987 and after domestic enquiry he was found guilty and was dismissed from service on 26-8-1987. Being aggrieved by this dismissal order he served grievance notice upon the respondent and then filed grievance petition before the Labour Court.
4. The main contention of the appellant is that the enquiry was not fair, as he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The enquiry proceedings show that no question in cross-examination was put to the prosecution witnesses. In the Enquiry Report the Enquiry Officer has stated that the appellant did not want to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. There is no such note in the enquiry proceedings. The appellant in his grievance notice, grievance petition and affidavit-in-evidence has alleged that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses. The Enquiry Officer Mr. Shafiq Ahmad has not been examined before the learned Labour Court therefore the appellant did not have any opportunity to cross-examine him nor have the respondents proved that the appellant did not want to cross-examine the respondents witnesses. Mr. Shareef Ahmed Malik has contended that no application in this respect was made by the appellant before issuance of show cause notice by them. Be it as it may, I am of opinion that the Court cannot come to the correct and proper finding as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper without examining the Enquiry Officer who is still in the service of the I respondents.
5. Under the circumstances without going into merits of the case, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Labour Court with the direction to complete the proceedings within three months and decide the case afresh, after examining the Enquiry Officer and after again hearing the parties, unprejudiced by its previous order. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court No.1 on 9-4-1990. M.Y.H./1649/Lb.S Case remanded.