1994 PLP 74 (PLC)
DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and another Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 74 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and another Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 74 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 74 (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: 1994 PLP 74 (PLC) (DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and another Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gul Muhammad Soomro for Appellant.
- Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee who was a conductor of bus was dismissed from service after charge‑sheet and holding due enquiry against him on ground that on relevant date he had not punched tickets which he had issued to passengers‑‑‑Inspector of Checking Squad had admitted that all passengers in bus were in possession of tickets and that no fraud in any conceivable way had been committed by employee‑‑‑No excess cash was found in bag of employee‑‑‑Only charge against employee was that tickets were not punched and fact of matter was that no punching machine at all was provided to employee‑‑‑Employee was rightly reinstated by Court, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th September, 1993. The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen in brief are as follows:‑‑ The respondent was working as a conductor in KTC since 1983 and states to have been run down in the proceedings because of his involvement in the labour union activities.
2. It is alleged that on 6‑7‑1987 he had his duties on a bus and the checking party had found that he had not punched the tickets which had been issued to the passengers. He was charge‑sheeted and after due enquiry, was dismissed from service.
3. He had sent the requisite grievance notice and followed it up by a petition in the Labour Court, where he was the only witness and there were two witnesses on behalf of the respondents including the Enquiry Officer.
4. The Labour Court in view of the statement of the Corporation's witnesses found that there was not an iota of evidence forthcoming against the respondent and therefore allowed the petition with back benefits. This order has been challenged here.
5. There have been a number of hearings and in spite of the order, the back benefits have not still been deposited. Otherwise too, on the showing of the appellants themselves all the passengers in the bus were in possession of tickets and Inspector Jamil Ahmed of the Checking Squad had admitted that no fraud in any conceivable way had been committed by the respondent. There was no excess cash found in his bag either.
6. The only charge against the respondent was that the tickets were not punched and the fact of the matter is that no punching machine had been provided to him at all. At the best he could have torn a piece of the ticket.
7. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that there is no occasion for me to find any fault with the order. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2229/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.