1976 PLP 703 (PLC)
DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN Versus AMANULLAH
| Citation | 1976 PLP 703 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IInd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN Versus AMANULLAH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 703 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 703 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IInd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 703 (PLC) (DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN Versus AMANULLAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A-Dismissal due to misconduct-No regular enquiry held Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Junior Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
AMANULLAH Appeal No. 1051 of 1973, decided on 17th January 1974. -- S. 25-A-Dismissal due to misconduct-No regular enquiry held Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Junior Labour Court. The above-named appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27-11-1973, passed by Junior Labour Court, D. G. Khan, whereby as application mate by the respondent under section 25-A of the
1. R. O., 1969, was accepted and he was ordered to be re-instated with all back benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted for mis appropriating a Crown Wheel Bearing. After an enquiry he was dismissed from service. He made an application to the Junior Labour Court, D. G. Khan for re-instatement. The Junior Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. The appellant preferred an appeal to this Court which was accepted and the case was sent back to the Junior Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with la. The parties appeared before the Junior Labour Court and on 10-11-1973 made statements that they did not want to produce any more evidence. The Junior Labour Court accepted the petition as mentioned above. I have gone through the record. Mr. Jan Muhammad Works Manager who conducted the enquiry appeared as R. W. and stated that he did not hold any regular enquiry against the appellant. The learned Representative of the respondent contended that after the preliminary enquiry conducted by Jan Muhammed, a regular enquiry was also held against the appellant, in which he was found guilty. He requested the Court to permit him to produce the enquiry proceedings, but the premission was refused on the ground that the request was made at a belated stage. Moreover, full opportunity was given to the parties in the Junior Labour Court to produce their evidence after the remand order, but they declined to do so. Their statements to that effect are on the file of the Junior Labour Court. Since it is admitted that no regular enquiry was held against the appellant, there fore the order of his dismissal from service is unsustainable. The order of the learned Junior Labour Court is well-reasoned and calls for no interference. For the foregoing reason I find no merits in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.