1984 PLP 1417 (PLC(CS))
MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, JHANG Versus GHULAM SHABBIR, SECURITY GUARD,
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1417 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, JHANG Versus GHULAM SHABBIR, SECURITY GUARD, |
| Primary Law | Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1417 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1417 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1417 (PLC(CS)) (MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, JHANG Versus GHULAM SHABBIR, SECURITY GUARD,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. O. 15 (1) (ii) (a)‑Dismissal from service for misconduct
Security guard charged with driving truck within yard without permission) licence‑No damage to vehicle nor any accident took place Violation not amounting to misconduct ‑ Re‑instated in service without back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. J. G.‑584 of 1978, decided on 24th March, 1982. ‑‑ S. O. 15 (1) (ii) (a)‑Dismissal from service for misconduct
Security guard charged with driving truck within yard without permission) licence‑No damage to vehicle nor any accident took place Violation not amounting to misconduct ‑ Re‑instated in service without back benefits. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 8th May, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent; therefore, the appeal has been beard ex parte.
2. The allegation against the respondent for which he was dismissed were that he bad driven within the yard truck of the appellant without any driving licence. No damage was caused to the truck, or to any other property. No allegation that any accident took place. Apparently the respondent had not taken the vehicle on the road and had driven it within the yard. The boundary of the yard being very small, apparently the respondent must have driven the truck only for while. Since no damage to the truck or to any of the property of the employer occurred, it cannot be said that the act of the respondent amounted to misconduct. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has said that the employer suffered the loss of the diesel which was consumed while the respondent had driven .the truck. I do not find any force in this argument. As I have mentioned above, the truck was driven within the yard only for a while, therefore, the quantity of the diesel which was used was negligible. Since the respon dent has no driving licence, therefore, be violated Standing Order 15 (1) (ii) (a) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which does not amount to misconduct. The respondent was rightly re‑instated. However, as with out permission and without licence the respondent had driven the truck, his act was not warranted by law, therefore, he was not entitled to back benefits.
3. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court disallowing back benefits to the respondent. M. I. Appeal partly accepted.