1979 PLP 314 (PLC)
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, ISLAMABAD Versus REHMAT DIN
| Citation | 1979 PLP 314 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, ISLAMABAD Versus REHMAT DIN |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 314 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 314 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 314 (PLC) (GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, ISLAMABAD Versus REHMAT DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15 (4)‑Dis missal from service‑Charge‑sheet not served within one month as required under S. O. 15 (4)‑Checker reporting case admitting in cross‑examination of there being a great rush in bus and it being not possible for respondent conductor to have issued tickets in short distance journeys‑‑Enquiry Officer also exonerating respondent of misconduct in such regard‑Dismissal, held, not warranted in circumstances.
- Muhammad Munir Bhatti, Superintendent for Appellant.
- Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
This is an appeal against the decision dated 29‑12‑1977 of Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi.
2. Rehmat Din, respondent, was appointed as a conductor on 6‑3‑1976 in Government Transport Service, Islamabad. On 21‑7‑1976 while his bus was plying from Rawalpindi to Pindi Gheb, it was checked at Taja Bara. It was found that 26 passengers were without tickets, out of whom the respondent had realised fare from four passengers. Form T. T. 40 was issued at the spot and he submitted his reply to the effect that there was a great rush in the bus and that while he was issuing tickets, his bus was checked. A charge‑sheet Exh. R‑2 dated 12‑8‑1976 was issued, but it was received by the respondent on 31‑8‑1976 as is evident from Exh. R‑
2. His reply to the charge‑sheet was to the same effect. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and so an enquiry was instituted against him. The checker, who appeared as a prosecution witness against the respondent, in his cross‑examination before the Enquiry Officer admitted that there was a great rush in the bus and there was not enough time for the respondent to have issued tickets in that short distance. It is also in the evidence that some of the passengers were riding on the top of the bus. The Enquiry officer, vide his report Exh. A‑4, exonerated the respondent, but the District Manager for the reasons known to him, issued second show‑cause notice and, thereafter, dismissed the respondent with effect from 18‑4‑1977, vide order dated 20‑4‑1977 Eah. A‑1.
3. The respondent served a grievance notice Exh. A‑2 dated 7‑5‑1977 and filed a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 13‑6‑1977 before the Labour Court, which accepted the same and ordered his re‑instatement with back benefits.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, the District Manager, Government Transport Service, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. From the perusal of the record I find that the charge‑sheet Exh. R‑2 was not served within one month as required under Standing order 15 (4) of W. P. Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968. The charge‑sheet is dated 12‑8‑1976 but on the same charge sheet it is mentioned that it was received by the respondent on 31‑8‑1976 . Further I find that the order of dismissal passed by the District Manager was wholly uncalled for, because the checker, who appeared before the Enquiry Officer, admitted in his cross‑examination that there was a great rush in the bus and that it was not possible for the respondent to have issued tickets in that short distance. In view of the above statement the Enquiry Officer rightly exonerated the respondent. Under these circumstances, I cannot understand how the order of dismissal could have been passed.
6. I, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal with Rs. 40 as costs. Appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Munir Bhatti, Superintendent for Appellant. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent. This is an appeal against the decision dated 29‑12‑1977 of Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi.
2. Rehmat Din, respondent, was appointed as a conductor on 6‑3‑1976 in Government Transport Service, Islamabad. On 21‑7‑1976 while his bus was plying from Rawalpindi to Pindi Gheb, it was checked at Taja Bara. It was found that 26 passengers were without tickets, out of whom the respondent had realised fare from four passengers. Form T. T. 40 was issued at the spot and he submitted his reply to the effect that there was a great rush in the bus and that while he was issuing tickets, his bus was checked. A charge‑sheet Exh. R‑2 dated 12‑8‑1976 was issued, but it was received by the respondent on 31‑8‑1976 as is evident from Exh. R‑
2. His reply to the charge‑sheet was to the same effect. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and so an enquiry was instituted against him. The checker, who appeared as a prosecution witness against the respondent, in his cross‑examination before the Enquiry Officer admitted that there was a great rush in the bus and there was not enough time for the respondent to have issued tickets in that short distance. It is also in the evidence that some of the passengers were riding on the top of the bus. The Enquiry officer, vide his report Exh. A‑4, exonerated the respondent, but the District Manager for the reasons known to him, issued second show‑cause notice and, thereafter, dismissed the respondent with effect from 18‑4‑1977, vide order dated 20‑4‑1977 Eah. A‑1.
3. The respondent served a grievance notice Exh. A‑2 dated 7‑5‑1977 and filed a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 13‑6‑1977 before the Labour Court, which accepted the same and ordered his re‑instatement with back benefits.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, the District Manager, Government Transport Service, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. From the perusal of the record I find that the charge‑sheet Exh. R‑2 was not served within one month as required under Standing order 15 (4) of W. P. Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968. The charge‑sheet is dated 12‑8‑1976 but on the same charge sheet it is mentioned that it was received by the respondent on 31‑8‑1976 . Further I find that the order of dismissal passed by the District Manager was wholly uncalled for, because the checker, who appeared before the Enquiry Officer, admitted in his cross‑examination that there was a great rush in the bus and that it was not possible for the respondent to have issued tickets in that short distance. In view of the above statement the Enquiry Officer rightly exonerated the respondent. Under these circumstances, I cannot understand how the order of dismissal could have been passed.
6. I, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal with Rs. 40 as costs. Appeal dismissed.