1994 PLP 273 (PLC)
PACKAGES LTD. Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 273 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | PACKAGES LTD. Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 273 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 273 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 273 (PLC) (PACKAGES LTD. Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javed Aftab for Petitioner.
- Malik Azam Rasool for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993.
- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have failed to appreciate the facts. It is added that they have no jurisdiction to change the punishment of dismissal to that of the stoppage of his increment. It is maintained that the order is based on the assumption that there was no corroboration. In this. behalf, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to refer to the statement of Tariq Mahmood. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
- 5. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that this is at the best a case of re‑evaluation of the evidence which is not possible in the Constitutional petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXHI of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Courts below concurrently exonerated employee of charges on basis of which he was dismissed from service‑‑‑Findings recorded by Courts below being based on evidence on record, could not be interfered with by high Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑-Scope‑‑‑Re‑evaluation of evidence, was not possible in Constitutional petition.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑-Scope‑‑‑Re‑evaluation of evidence, was not possible in Constitutional petition. Javed Aftab for Petitioner. Malik Azam Rasool for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993. The respondent No.3 was employed as Senior Clerk in the Paper Converting Department of the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegations that he instigated Nur Muhammad, Despatch Clerk, to include the name of Tariq Mahmood, Junior Clerk, in the list of workers for the payment of incentive. The result was that the payment of Rs.458.66 was made. The three employees were charge‑sheeted after preliminary enquiry. The respondent No.3 was dismissed from service. He filed grievance petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O. of 1969. The petitioner contested the same. However, the petition was partly allowed and the result was that the dismissal of the petitioner was modified into withholding of his increment for one year.
2. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 filed cross‑appeals. The same were heard together. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed while that of respondent No.3 was 'accepted. The result was that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges. Now this finding of respondent No.l dated 12‑10‑1983 has been impugned through this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have failed to appreciate the facts. It is added that they have no jurisdiction to change the punishment of dismissal to that of the stoppage of his increment. It is maintained that the order is based on the assumption that there was no corroboration. In this. behalf, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to refer to the statement of Tariq Mahmood. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The findings recorded by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are based on the evidence on record. Now coming to the application of Tariq Mahmood whereby he had tried to involve respondent No.3 and exonerate himself, cannot be taken into consideration. The same merits exclusion because Tariq Mahmood was not examined and the document proved.
5. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that this is at the best a case of re‑evaluation of the evidence which is not possible in the Constitutional petition.
6. The result is that there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./P‑83???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.