1978 PLP 270 (PLC)
MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI Versus ABDUL MAJID
| Citation | 1978 PLP 270 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI Versus ABDUL MAJID |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 270 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 270 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 270 (PLC) (MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI Versus ABDUL MAJID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
S. O.18--Grievance procedure-Inquiry-Definition of witnesses given in Urdu yet recorded in English-Refusal to supply Urdu translation of inquiry, held, deprived respondent-workman of opportunity to properly defend himself-Evidence having been given in Urdu same ought to have been recorded in Urdu and not in English. M. A. Khan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 1st August 1977. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court allowing the application of the respondent for re-instatement. 2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. He was charge-sheeted and inquiry was held. On conclusion of the inquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed from service. He approached the Labour Court after service of the grievence notice. 3. The Labour Court allowed the application on the ground that, although, deposition by the witnesses was given in Urdu, yet it was recorded in English and the same was supplied to the respondent despite his request to supply the Urdu translation of the inquiry proceedings and, therefore, the respondent was deprived of the opportunity to properly defend himself. He, however, did not consider it necessary to order fresh inquiry. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I am of the view that the learned Labour Court was fully justified in bolding that the refusal to supply the Urdu translation of the inquiry deprived him of the opportunity find himself. Since the evidence was given in Urdu, it ought to have been recorded in Urdu and not in English. The supply of the copy of the proceedings in English was hardly desirable as the respondent was illiterate and he was not expected to ran after persons to undertake the job of translation for him. It was the primary duty of the Management, itself to adopt the procedure as indicated by me. I agree that the Labour Court was not justified in debarring the Management from holding fresh inquiry. 5. In result the appeal is dismissed with the modification that the appellant shall be at liberty to hold fresh inquiry on the original charge sheet, which was served upon the respondent. The proceedings shall be recorded in Urdu and the copies will also be supplied to the respondent accordingly. The action, which may be found fit may be taken in accordance with law Appeal dismissed.