1984 PLP 1028 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1028 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1028 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1028 (PLC(CS))?
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 1028 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Mahmood for Appellant,
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. LHR‑442 of 1980, decided on 26th October, 1982. ‑‑Domestic enquiry Can be held only after considering reply to charge‑sheet as unsatisfactory. Asghar Mahmood for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1982. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent while acting as Time Checker recovered Re. I from the conductors of the buses which passed from Township terminus on 17th May, 1979. Muhammad Khalil an employee of the appellant was present there and saw the respondent committing this misconduct. He reported the matter where upon the respondent was charge‑sheeted and dismissed after inquiry, No order was placed on the lower Court record and on the inquiry file for the appointment of Inquiry Officer. Inquiry can be ordered only after considering the reply to the charge‑sheet if the reply has been found unsatisfactory. It appears that without considering the reply to the charge‑sheet inquiry was ordered verbally. This reasoning of the learned Presiding Officer of the lower Court is also cogent that the conductors who are alleged to have paid tips at Re. 1 to the respondent were not examined at the inquiry. The complainant Muhammad Khalil only saw the passing of the money. What talk occurred between the res pondent and the conductors who are alleged to have paid Re. 1 each to the respondent is not known. So, it is only the opinion of Muhammad Khalil that the money was a tip. Examination of the conductors who paid the amount was necessary to (sic) hypothesis that the amounts were either taken as a loan or in discharge of past loan. This decision has been made presuming that money was paid. But plea of the respondent was m total denial. The charge was not proved and the respondent was rightly directed to be re‑instated. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.