1978 PLP 445 (PLC(CS))
Present: Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer SAADULLAH Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD
| Citation | 1978 PLP 445 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | IIIrd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer SAADULLAH |
| Parties | Present: Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer SAADULLAH Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 445 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 445 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the IIIrd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer SAADULLAH.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 445 (PLC(CS)) (Present: Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer SAADULLAH Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz for Petitioner.
- Shafique A. Malik for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V1 of 1968) ‑‑‑‑ S. O. 15(3) & (4)‑Termination due to misconduct‑Allegation‑ Absence for more than ten days‑Leave applications on medical grounds submitted by accused received by Management‑No charge sheet served and no inquiry hold‑Termination order, in circumstances held illegal‑Accused being on leave Management not competent to terminate.
Judgment & Decree
Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz for Petitioner. Shafique A. Malik for Respondent. The petitioner, Saadullah was recruited a9 Peon on 23‑9‑
75. He was dismissed from service on 16‑9‑76 by the following order‑‑ "services of Mr. Saadullah. Peon are hereby terminated with effect from 9‑8‑76 A. N. due to long wilful absence from duty."
2. The petitioner has challenged the above order by filing this petition. He says that be became sick and, he sent applications duly supported by medical certificates far leave from 9‑8‑76 to 4.10‑76 that he came to j3in duty on 5‑10‑76 but the order of dismissal was handed over to him. He says that neither any charge‑sheet was framed against him nor any inquiry was held.
3. The above allegations have not been controverted. The absence for more than ten days without leave constitutes misconduct as defined in Standing Order No. 15(3). In order to impose punishment on the petitioner it was necessary for the respondent to institute an inquiry and to afford an opportunity of defence as required by pare. 4 of Standing Order A No.
15. As the inquiry procedure was not adopted, therefore, the dismissal order is illegal.
4. The petitioner appeared as his own witness. He said that he sent leave applications on the dates 9‑8‑76, 24‑6‑76, 17‑9‑76 and 18‑9‑76, duly supported by the medical certificates. According to him the leave applications were sent under registered cover and the postal receipts are Exhs P‑3 to P‑
5. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced. I hold that the leave applications were sent by the petitioner the respondent was, therefore, not competent to dismiss the petitioner because ho was on leave. Of course it was the discretion of the respondent to accept or reject the leave applications.
5. For tire above reasons the petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to re‑instate the petitioner with back benefits.