1993 PLP 416 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD IZHAR‑UL‑AHSAN QURESHI Versus M/s. PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 416 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IZHAR‑UL‑AHSAN QURESHI Versus M/s. PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 416 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 416 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 416 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD IZHAR‑UL‑AHSAN QURESHI Versus M/s. PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellant.
- Masood A. Khan, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Petition earlier filed by employee against his dismissal from service, was finally dismissed even upto Supreme Court‑‑ Employee who was involved in a criminal case, was acquitted as a result of benefit of doubt‑‑‑After acquittal, employee served a fresh grievance notice and filed grievance petition which was finally dismissed‑=‑Neither criminal case was bar to holding domestic enquiry against employee nor judgment of acquittal in a criminal case would provide a fresh cause of action especially when subject‑matter of enquiry against employee and of criminal trial were altogether different.
Judgment & Decree
2. The appellant was appointed by the respondent as a peon in 1967 and in the year 1978 had risen to the post of Technical Liberarian. On 20‑4‑1978 he was served with a show‑cause notice followed by a charge‑sheet containing the following allegations:‑‑ "(a) That the photocopy of the provisional Matriculation and Mark Sheet submitted by you to the Corporation have been found forged. (b) That the copies of the Certificate submitted by you certifying you to have qualified Librarianship Examination have also been found forged. (c) That on your application dated 10‑4‑1978 you have fraudulently affixed the signature of Mr. SA. Rasool, Chief Librarian, Technical Liberarian, Technical as a matter of fact he never signed. (d) That you submitted false information with regard to your educational certificates, experience and date of birth to the Corporation vide your application dated 19‑4‑1972. (e) That you have also falsely stated your date of birth as 31‑12‑1941 in your employment application whereas the same was 31‑12‑1945."
3. It might as well be mentioned that he had challenged the issuance of the charge‑sheet in a declaratory suit and also got an interim injunction order from the Court of a Civil Judge; but the stay order was vacated and later on the suit itself came to be dismissed on 20‑5‑1978. It might as well be mentioned that the appellant had pursued the matter upto the Supreme Court.
4. Once the stay was vacated, domestic enquiry was ordered and on the report of the Enquiry Officer he was dismissed from service on 20‑5‑1978.
5. Upon the dismissal, he filed a grievance petition which came to be dismissed by the Labour Court. His appeal before the Tribunal also failed. This decision was assailed in a Constitutional petition which ended in dismissal and the appeal before the Supreme Court also met the same fate on 21‑9‑1988.
6. There was a criminal case also pending against the appellant and a few other persons for charges under sections 420, 466, 472, 474, 475, P.P.C. and 6(1)(c)(g)(h) of Passport Act, 1974. It ended in acquittal on 9‑5‑1991 as a result of the benefit of doubt given to them due to non‑examination of some very material witnesses. It was thereafter that the appellant served a fresh grievance notice and then filed a petition before the Labour Court resulting in the impugned order.
7. The narration of events unmistakably discloses that the appellant had filed a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. and there was a finality about the matter when his appeal came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is an exiomatic principle of law that a criminal case is not a bar to the holding of the domestic enquiry. Nor will a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case provide a fresh cause of action. Otherwise too, the subject‑matter of the enquiry, and of the criminal trial were altogether different. The appeal is devoid of any merit. I will therefore, dismiss it. H.B.T./2117/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.