1984 PLP 1727 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1727 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1727 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1727 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 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 1727 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir‑ud‑Din Ansari for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑Termination of services for absence without w leave‑Service of notices and charge‑sheet upon employee not proved‑Termination order held defective and set aside‑Employee reinstated with back benefits. Date of the hearing: 29th May, 1982.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑Termination of services for absence without w leave‑Service of notices and charge‑sheet upon employee not proved‑Termination order held defective and set aside‑Employee reinstated with back benefits. Amir‑ud‑Din Ansari for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of the hearing: 29th May, 1982. In this appeal the decision, dated 12th May, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a fitter in the Body Building Work shop and on the charge of absence from 4th July, 1978 upto the date of charge‑sheet t. e. 12th October, 1978 his services were terminated. Notices to resume duty are alleged to have been issued to him on his address on 15th July, 1978, 30th July, 1978 and 15th August, 1978 but without any response. The charge‑sheet, copy of which is Exh. D‑4, is alleged to have been sent to the respondent on his address by registered post, but no postal receipt was brought on the file in token of the fact that the charge‑sheet had actually been despatched by registered post. Gulzar Ahmad (DW‑I) no doubt said that charge‑sheet Exh. D‑4 was sent under registered cover but he had not deposed that he had himself gone to the post office and sent the notice under registered cover. In the absence of a postal receipt, it cannot be said that the charge‑sheet was actually despatched. The counsel for the respondent put particular questions to the witness with regard to the postal receipt and he answered that such postal receipts are issued but added that they are with the time‑keeper and not with him. The other question put to him was whether letters were sent to the res pondent with A/D receipt, and the answer was in the affirmative and the witness added that in none of the letters any A/D receipt was received back. So the service of charge‑sheet does not stand proved. There is no evidence, if any enquiry notice was sent to the respondent. No copy of the enquiry notice is on the record, nor the solitary witness DW‑1 stated that any such enquiry notice was sent. This is another defect for which the order of reinstatement appears to be justified. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was right in ordering the reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.