1986 PLP 289 (PLC)
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus BASHIR AHMAD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 289 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus BASHIR AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 289 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 289 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1986 PLP 289 (PLC) (GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus BASHIR AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 21st September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Bus conductor charged‑for misappropriation by issuing tickets of lesser value as, compared to distance alleged to have been travelled by passengers‑‑Statement of passengers involved not recorded by checker in presence of accused nor accused confronted with passengers‑‑Evidence of checker not present at time when passengers allegedly boarded bus‑‑Merely hearsay evidence without corroboration not sufficient to pass penalty‑‑Order‑‑Punishment of stoppage of increment based upon such evidence‑‑Illegal. S.M. Kaleem representative of Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Kaleem representative of Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st September, 1985. The decision, dated18‑12‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the punishment of stopping of annual increment for one year was set aside.‑ 2. The allegation against the respondent was that the passengers had got into the bus from Nabipur for Sheikhupura but the respondent issued ticket from Khanpur to Sheikhupura and thus misappropriated the difference of the fare. Only the checker was examined in the inquiry. Neither passengers who are alleged to have boarded the bus from Nabipur were examined nor at the time of checking their statements were recorded by the checker in the presence of the respondent, nor TT‑40 shows that the respondent was confronted with any of the passengers. 3. In the circumstances the evidence of the checker who was not resent at the time the passengers are alleged to have boarded the bus from Nabipur is merely hearsay without any corroboration. The' Punishment awarded to the respondent being illegal was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. 4. As a result, the appeal being without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed. A.E. Appeal dismissed.