1979 PLP 184 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1979 PLP 184 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IInd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 184 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 184 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IInd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 184 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saad Ullah Mumtaz for Petitioner.
- Ch. Liaqat Ali, A. L. O. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 15(4)‑Misconduct‑Domestic enquiry‑Accused‑Workman (Conductor of G. T. S.) proceeded against on basis of written complaint by a passenger‑Neither copy of complaint supplied to accused nor complainant called by Inquiry Officer for being confronted by him‑Enquiry, held, perverse‑Accused directed to be re‑instated but without back wages.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. O. 15(4)‑Misconduct‑Domestic enquiry‑Accused‑Workman (Conductor of G. T. S.) proceeded against on basis of written complaint by a passenger‑Neither copy of complaint supplied to accused nor complainant called by Inquiry Officer for being confronted by him‑Enquiry, held, perverse‑Accused directed to be re‑instated but without back wages. Saad Ullah Mumtaz for Petitioner. Ch. Liaqat Ali, A. L. O. for Respondent. Petitioner joined service of the respondent in 1967 as conductor. He was given duty on a bus on 24‑9‑1976 when it was going from Sialkot to Rawalpindi. A passenger enbussed from Sialkot for Rawalpindi with one maund luggage. Petitioner had not issued a ticket of luggage to the passenger. His bus was checked near Gujar Khan. I. T. 40 which is a charge‑sheet was given to him and in reply to this charge‑sheet he admitted not to have issued the luggage ticket to the passenger but the reason for it shown by him in his reply was that a G. T. S. bus, went out of order at Wazirabad on its way to Rawalpindi and his bus had 'to collect passengers of that bus as well as their luggage. There was rush in both the buses due to Eid festival, therefore, he forgot to collect the fare of the luggage from the passenger. An enquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed from service as a result of that enquiry. Notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent in its evidence has produced the original enquiry proceedings and a complaint by the passenger who was not issued the luggage ticket. Petitioner 'has remained consistent in his defence that he could not issue the ticket due to rush. Neither copy of the complaint of the passenger was supplied to him nor passenger was called by the enquiry officer so that he could be confronted. If there is a written complaint by an outsider then copy of that complaint is always to be supplied to the misconductee. Non‑supply of the copy prejudices the misconductee in his defence. In that view of the matter I find that to that extent enquiry was perverse. In view of what has been discussed above I direct that petitioner be re‑instated but he is not entitled to back wages for the intervening period for a defective enquiry. Order accordingly.