1986 PLP 417 (PLC)
FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED
| Citation | 1986 PLP 417 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 417 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 417 (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 417 (PLC) (FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nasim Sikandar for Appellant.
- Abdul Rashid Randhawa for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Second enquiry‑‑Competent authority not agreeing with Enquiry Officer directing second enquiry‑‑Not a sufficient ground for setting aside dismissal order. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Ex parte proceedings‑‑Enquiry Officer without satisfying himself that accused served with notice of enquiry proceeding ex parte‑‑Ex parte enquiry in circumstances, held, not justified and such flaw sufficient to vitiate enquiry and its result.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Ex parte proceedings‑‑Enquiry Officer without satisfying himself that accused served with notice of enquiry proceeding ex parte‑‑Ex parte enquiry in circumstances, held, not justified and such flaw sufficient to vitiate enquiry and its result. Nasim Sikandar for Appellant. Abdul Rashid Randhawa for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1985. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 8‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby Muhammad Javed (hereinafter to be called "the respondent") was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. The Faisalabad Development Authority (hereinafter described as "the appellant") has challenged the direction of re‑instatement, whereas the respondent has, in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had approved a building plan of shop in residential area. Inquiry was made twice. The first Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty but suggested stopping of increment for two years. The employer did not agree and appointed another Inquiry Officer, who too found the respondent guilty and suggested major penalty of dismissal. The respondent was accordingly dismissed from service.
3. The learned lower Court has set aside the order of dismissal on the sole ground that 2nd inquiry could not be held and that agreeing with the first Inquiry Officer minor penalty could have been imposed. This is not a sufficient ground for setting aside the dismissal order. However, second inquiry was not properly held. The respondent did not join it. RW‑1, second Inquiry Officer, said that he could not say if notice of inquiry sent by him to the respondent was served upon him or not. It is clear that without satisfying himself if the respondent had been served, he held second inquiry ex parte. He was not justified. So the respondent was condemned unheard. This flaw is sufficient to vitiate the inquiry and its result. So the order of re‑instatement cannot be disturbed although grounds, given by the learned lower Court are not cogent.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent was rightly disallowed the same. He did not assert that he remained jobless after his dismissal from service.
5. As a result, both the appeals fail and are thus dismissed. A.E.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.