1984 PLP 454 (PLC)
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, GUJRAT Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
| Citation | 1984 PLP 454 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, GUJRAT Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 454 (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 1984 PLP 454 (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: 1984 PLP 454 (PLC) (GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, GUJRAT Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shuja‑ud‑Din Arshad for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus conductor's case‑Ticket-less passenger‑Fair alleged to have been realised Statement of passenger recorded by checker‑‑Accused requesting Enquiry Officer to summon passenger and bus driver.‑‑Address of passenger not recorded‑Refusal of Enquiry Officer to summon passenger‑Not objectionable‑Bus driver an eye‑witness and employee of employer also not summoned‑Labour Court, in cir cumstances, held, justified awarding re‑instatement with back benefits. Date of bearing : 1st February, 1984.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus conductor's case‑Ticket-less passenger‑Fair alleged to have been realised Statement of passenger recorded by checker‑‑Accused requesting Enquiry Officer to summon passenger and bus driver.‑‑Address of passenger not recorded‑Refusal of Enquiry Officer to summon passenger‑Not objectionable‑Bus driver an eye‑witness and employee of employer also not summoned‑Labour Court, in cir cumstances, held, justified awarding re‑instatement with back benefits. Shuja‑ud‑Din Arshad for Appellant. Date of bearing : 1st February, 1984. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 7th November, 1983 passed‑by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala.
2. The respondent is a conductor. During the checking of the bus conducted by him one passenger traveling between Gujranwala and Lahore was found without ticket from whom the respondent is alleged to have realised the fare of Rs. 3.
3. The respondent requested the Enquiry Officer to summon the passenger who was without ticket and the driver of the bus but the request was refused. The address of the passenger is not given in his statement recorded by the checker. The respondent, therefore, was not in a position to summon the said passenger in defence. The driver was a material witness as his presence in the bus at the time of checking cannot be denied. He is the employee of the appellant, so could to produced. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
4. As a result, there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine. A.E. Appeal dismissed.