1983 PLP 261 (PLC)
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD
| Citation | 1983 PLP 261 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 261 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 261 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 261 (PLC) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Mahood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Evidence‑Bus conductor charged for non- issuance of tickets having received fate‑Passengers from whom such fare alleged to have been received not appearing before Enquiry Officer‑Statement of such passengers before Checking Party neither recorded nor signed by accused‑ Checker not being eye‑witness to recovery of fare‑Statement of Checker, held, had no evindentiary value‑Dismissal order on basis of findings of enquiry based upon such evidence, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal arises from the decision dated 9‑9‑82 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respon dent was directed to be re‑instated without back benefits. The bus conducted by the respondent conductor was checked on 20‑1‑1978. It was found that from four passengers out of whom two were students he had realised the fare but had not issued tickets to them. There were two other lady passen gers travelling from railway station to Regal from whom the respondent is alleged to have recovered fare but had not issued tickets. The appellant did not admit the charge and contended that the students had no identity cards and did not want to pay full fare and that when discussion was going on the checkers entered the bus and recovered the fare from the passengers. He also pleaded that he had not still then recovered fare. The Inquiry Officer remarked that there were adverse entries in the ‑record against the respondent and one case of dishonesty was pending against him. This was an extraneous matter which was not included in the charge‑sheet not any evidence was produced about it. The respondent was therefore prejudices. The statement of the passengers who told the checking party that fare had been recovered from them by the respondent, were not recorded and got signed from the respondent. If the passengers were not to be examined in the inquiry their statements should have been recorded and produce at the inquiry The checker not being the eye‑witnesses of the recovery of fare, their evidence in this respect had no evidentiary value. The respondent was therefore wrongly dismissed and his grievance petition was rightly accepted. As a result of the observation made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine. Appeal dismissed.