1986 PLP 337 (PLC)
KAMRAN STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS LIMITED SHEIKHUPURA Versus MANSAB ALI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 337 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KAMRAN STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS LIMITED SHEIKHUPURA Versus MANSAB ALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 337 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 337 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab 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: 1986 PLP 337 (PLC) (KAMRAN STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS LIMITED SHEIKHUPURA Versus MANSAB ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sajjad Raza Jaffary for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Absence without leave for ten days and not for more than ten days‑‑Does not amount to misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
Sajjad Raza Jaffary for Appellant. Date of hearing: 7th May, 1984. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 16‑4‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated ire service without back benefits.
2. The allegation as contained in the show‑cause notice was absence without leave from 23‑9‑1983 to 2‑10‑1983. The learned lower Court has accepted the grievance petition on the ground that the absence being for not more than ten days, did not constitute misconduct and that no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to cross‑examine the witnesses examined against him in the enquiry, inasmuch as the words "opportunity to cross‑examine was given" were added afterwards with different ink. Charge‑sheet Exh. R‑1 is, dated 3‑10‑1983 and the Enquiry Officer stated before the learned lower Court that the respondent had attended on 3‑10‑1983 and on the same day charge‑sheet was delivered to him. 3rd October was the 11th day. So, action was taken for the absence for ten days and not for more than ten days. The learned lower Court time rightly held that such an absence did not amount to misconduct.
3. The learned lower court is correct in saying that no opportunity of cross‑examination was given. The Words "cross‑examination nil, opportunity given" are in different ink, which shows that these words were added much afterwards. If at the time of recording evidence these words had been written in the presence of the respondent, they would have been in the same ink with which the Examination‑in‑chief and other proceedings were recorded. The respondent was thus rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E. Appeal dismissed.