1983 PLP 291 (PLC)
MESSRS PACKAGES LTD. Versus SARDAR MASIH
| Citation | 1983 PLP 291 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS PACKAGES LTD. Versus SARDAR MASIH |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 291 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 291 (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: 1983 PLP 291 (PLC) (MESSRS PACKAGES LTD. Versus SARDAR MASIH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mohammad Yasin for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Charge‑sheet, service of‑Presumption of valid service‑Arises only if sent through registered post‑Charge‑sheet sent through postal certificate cannot be presumed to have been served‑Dismissal order based upon charge‑sheet sent through post certificate categorically denied to have been received, .held, not sustainable‑Permission to hold fresh enquiry and proceedings, held, correctly refused because charge‑sheet could not validly be served after expiry of one month of alleged charge‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15 (4).
Judgment & Decree
This appeal arises from the decision dated 26‑7‑82 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated without back benefits.
2. The respondent obtained leave from 10‑4‑79 to 13‑4‑79 and went to Karachi as his mother‑in‑law was ill there. He himself fell ill there and sent intimation to the appellant by post. He reported for duty on 14‑6‑79 but was delivered dismissal letter dated 14‑5‑
79. The learned lower Court has directed the re‑instatement of the respondent on the sole ground that charge‑sheet and inquiry notice were sent not by registered post but under postal certificates. No presumption arises that letters sent under postal certificate were received by the addressee. Such a presumption arises if letters are sent on the correct address by registered post. Such letters do not come back if not delivered to the addressee whereas ` registered unserved letters come back to the sender. Again registered letters are personally handed over to the addressee and a receipt is taken but letters sent under postal certificates being ordinary letters are not delivered personally nor any receipt is taken but are thrown in the buildings. The respondent categorically denied the receipt of any such letters. The learned lower Court was therefore right in holding that service of charge‑sheet and inquiry notice was not proved. The inquiry was therefore invalid and the dismissal based upon it being un‑sustainable was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. 3: Learned counsel for the appellant has in the last resort argued that permission for re‑inquiry be given. This request also cannot be accepted because no charge‑sheet was served and now the charge‑sheet has according to Standing Order 15 (4) of the Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 become time‑barred. Within one month of the occurrence of the misconduct charge‑sheet is to be served. The matter is o: April, 1979 and now it is the end of November, 1982.
4. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it, Appeal dismissed.