1993 PLP 926 (PLC)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SURAJ G14EE INDUSTRIES LTD., SHEIKHUPURA Versus ILAM DIN
| Citation | 1993 PLP 926 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Mohammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MANAGING DIRECTOR, SURAJ G14EE INDUSTRIES LTD., SHEIKHUPURA Versus ILAM DIN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 926 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 926 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Mohammad 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: 1993 PLP 926 (PLC) (MANAGING DIRECTOR, SURAJ G14EE INDUSTRIES LTD., SHEIKHUPURA Versus ILAM DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Domestic enquiry‑‑‑Purpose of finding out alleged offence and to afford proper opportunity to accused to explain material brought against him on record by prosecution evidence is not merely to get misconduct admitted by accused‑‑‑Where no evidence of prosecution was recorded and statement of only accused was obtained, charge, held, remained unproved. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.2(i)‑‑‑"Worker"‑‑‑Security Guard‑‑‑Duties involving opening and closing of gate and physical checking incoming and outgoing vehicles‑‑‑A worker. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Enquiry defective‑‑‑Permission for fresh enquiry is discretion of Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Enquiry defective‑‑‑Permission for fresh enquiry is discretion of Court. Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Appellant. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985. The decision dated 19‑11‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service has been accepted with back benefits holding him as a workman.
2. The respondent is a Security Guard. He is alleged to have allowed the exit of a wagon carrying defective empty containers without gate‑pass or permission. As the goods were excisable, the excise staff captured the wagon and challaned the Manager for evasion of the payment of excise duty. The respondent was charge‑sheeted and inquiry notice was served upon him. No inquiry proceedings are on the file but the respondent said in his statement that inquiry was held in which only his statement was recorded, but no prosecution witness was examined. Inquiries are held not for getting the misconduct admitted by the workers concerned but for finding out if they have committed the offence and to afford him proper opportunity to explain the a material brought against them on the record by the prosecution evidence. As no evidence was produced, there was no occasion to record the statement of the respondent. As no witness was examined, the charge remained unproved, so the learned lower Court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service.
3. So far as the question whether the respondent is a workman or not is concerned, it has been argued that he being a Security Guard was not covered by the definition of workman. The argument is devoid of force. The respondent deposed in his statement that he used to open and close the gate, physically checked the vehicles coming in and going out of the factory and loading and unloading was too within his duties. R.Ws.l and 2 instead of rebutting the statement of the respondent corroborated him by saying that the respondent used to close and open the gate, check the vehicles and workers. RW‑1 rather went to the extent of saying that the respondent was a worker.
4. It has been argued that even if the inquiry was not properly held the learned lower Court should have permitted fresh inquiry. I do not find any force in this argument, firstly in every case permitting fresh inquiry is not necessary and secondly it is the discretion of the Court.
5. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent said that since the date of his dismissal he was jobless. So, he was rightly allowed back benefits.
6. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./21/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.