1988 PLP 978 (PLC(CS))
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus GULZAR HUSSAIN
| Citation | 1988 PLP 978 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus GULZAR HUSSAIN |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing; Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 978 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing; Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 978 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1988 PLP 978 (PLC(CS)) (AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus GULZAR HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajjad Ahmad Lone for Appellant.
- Sadid Mohammad Warraich for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O. 15(3)(i)--industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3 --Misconduct--Neglect of work--Workman alleged to have done no work on specified dates--Allegation amounted to misconduct Of neglect of work--Such allegation could not be prima facie said as vague--Labour Court accepting grievance petition against dismissal for such charge holding, that charge was vague--Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by appellate Tribunal remanding case for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Sajjad Ahmad Lone for Appellant. Sadid Mohammad Warraich for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1988. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 31-5-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. Rawalpindi, accepting the grievance petition of 1ho respondent for his reinstatement in service.
2. The learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent on the ground that action was taken under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules meant for civil servants, whereas the respondent is not a civil servant. Merely citation of Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules is not sufficient to action could not be taken. If the allegations amount to misconduct under say that ding Orders Ordinance, 1968, action can be taken. The learned low has non said that the allegations did not come under any of the clauses Of Standing Order 15(3). Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that allegations arc vague. This point was not raised before the learned lower Court the judgment is silent. Charge No. (b) is to the effect that the respondent did not do any next from 1-1-1981 to 31-5-1981. At (cast regarding this charge can be prima facie said that is vague. Neglect of work prima facie amounts misconduct according to Standing Order 15(3)(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. So the case needs to be decided on merits and the order of dismissal could not be set aside on the ground given by the learned lower Court.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court the case is remanded for decision on merits and other legal grounds if any. A.E./1089/Lb. S. Appeal accepted.