1983 PLP 861 (PLC(CS))
KHURSHID BIBI Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA
| Citation | 1983 PLP 861 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KHURSHID BIBI Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 861 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 861 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1983 PLP 861 (PLC(CS)) (KHURSHID BIBI Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mansoor‑ur‑Rehman Khan Afidi and Malik Karamat Ali for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 20th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Re‑instatement ‑ Back benefits Workman dismissed for misconduct‑Charge‑sheet not served but enquiry held‑Non‑service of charge‑sheet, held, not only a technical defect but makes whole proceedings as illegal and‑‑without jurisdiction‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits, ' Vr in circumstances, amended by Appellate Tribunal holding workman entitled to back benefits also‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15 (4).
Judgment & Decree
The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 9‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service but back benefits were not allowed to her. In this appeal she claimed back benefits, rand has challenged the impugned decision to this extent.
2. No charge‑sheet was proved to have been delivered to her However, in the enquiry report the enquiry officer said that she disobeyed the transfer order and abused the Sanitary Inspector. Since the allegation contained in the enquiry report amounted to misconduct, following of procedure given in Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was necessary. Delivery of charge‑sheet is must. Enquiry can be ordered only after considering the reply to the charge‑sheet and finding it as unsatisfactory. Since the charge‑sheet was not delivered, no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to explain the allegations made against her. So neither any enquiry could be held against her, nor she could be dismissed. Non‑delivery of charge‑sheet is not only a technical defect but makes the whole proceedings as illegal and without jurisdiction. The appellant, therefore, was entitled to back benefits also. 1. accordingly, accept the appeal and allow back benefits to the appellant, Appeal accepted.