1984 PLP 505 (PLC)
IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD. FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 505 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD. FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 505 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 505 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 505 (PLC) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD. FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munawar Ahmad Jared for Appellant.
- H. R. Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing :18th May, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Accused in start of enquiry stating that he did not want to make any statement other than what is stated in reply to charge‑sheet‑Not asked after close of prosecution evidence whether he wanted to make any statement‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced‑Recording statement of accused after close of prosecution evidence ‑ Essential in order to put to him material brought against him and afford him opportunity of explaining same‑Punishment awarded without, such opportunity, held, stood vitiated.
Judgment & Decree
Munawar Ahmad Jared for Appellant. H. R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing :18th May, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision dated 23rd May, 1981, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.
5. Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a Store Cooly. On the allegation that three rolls of wicks were recovered from his possession while going out of the factory gate, he was charge‑sheeted for committing theft. His reply to the charge- sheet was considered as unsatisfactory and an enquiry was held against him, which culminated in his dismissal. The plea taken by the appellant was that he was taking away the wicks to another branch of the Mills situated outside the gate in order to try the empty tins which were to be weighed. The only defect in the enquiry is that the statement of the appel lant in his defence was not recorded. He did not say on the conclusion of the enquiry that he did not want to give any statement. The learned counsel appeared for the respondent has said that since in the beginning the appellant was enquired that he wanted to make any statement and he refused to do so, it was not necessary to record his statement. In the beginn ing what was enquired from the appellant was whether he had given reply to the charge‑sheet and he said that besides his statement in writing already given he did not want to make any other statement. Obviously, the appel lant said so because he did not want to add to his reply to the charge‑sheet but it did not mean that he did not want to make any statement after the close of the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence. It was note enquired from him nor he himself on his own accord stated that he did not, want to make any statement. Recording of statement, the statement of person under enquiry after close of the prosecution evidence is necessary in order to put to him the material which has been brought against him in the evidence and he is to be given opportunity, to explain the same. Since such an opportunity was not given he was prejudiced and the punishment awarded to him stands vitiated.
3. As a result of the observations made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the punishment of dismissal and the impugned order of the learned lower Court direct the re‑instatement of the appellant. However, as the appellant has succeeded on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits. A.E. Appeal accepted.