1990 PLP 480 (PLC)
BASHIR AHMAD and others Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE and others
| Citation | 1990 PLP 480 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD and others Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 480 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 480 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1990 PLP 480 (PLC) (BASHIR AHMAD and others Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf, Representative for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Removal from service Employees removed from service without charge‑sheet and without holding of inquiry against them‑‑‑When Labour Court accorded permission to establishment to give charge sheet to employee, period of limitation within which such employees could be charge‑sheeted had already expired‑‑‑Permission to give charge‑sheet, held, was not maintainable and Labour Court erred in allowing establishment to charge sheet employees‑‑‑Employees, reinstated in service and permission given by lower Court set aside.
Judgment & Decree
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 31‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby directing the reinstatement of the appellants in service, the respondent was allowed to charge‑sheet the appellants and pass any order in accordance with law. Since the points involved in both the appeals are common, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The appellants were water carriers. They were directed to work as sweeper. It is alleged that they refused to work as such and went on strike. Without issuing any charge‑sheet and holding any inquiry, they were removed from service. In the written statements stand was taken that the appellants were not removed from service and that they themselves remained off duty. However, PW‑1 in cross‑examination admitted that the services of the appellants were terminated and in their place other persons were employed. The learned lower Court missed to see that the period of thirty days within which the appellants could be charge sheeted had expired. Since the services of the appellants were terminated on the plea that they had refused to work and had gone on strike, it is apparent that the alleged absence had come to the knowledge of the employer before the appellants were verbally removed from service. The period of limitation, therefore, had long ago run out before the learned lower Court passed the impugned orders. Since the period for charge‑sheeting the appellants has expired, the permission to give charge‑sheets is not maintainable. In the absence of charge‑sheets no inquiry can be held and no action can be taken. The learned lower Court in these circumstances erred in allowing the respondent to charge sheet the appellants and to proceed against them according to law. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellants did not assert in their statements that they from the date of removal from service remained jobless.
3. As a result, the appeals are accepted and maintaining the orders of reinstatement permission given by the learned lower Court for charge‑sheeting the appellants is withdrawn and proceedings against them are set aside. M.Y.H./279/Lb.P Appeals accepted.