1976 PLP 358 (PLC)
GHULAM RABBANI Versus ISLAMABAD OMNI BUS SERVICE
| Citation | 1976 PLP 358 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IInd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | GHULAM RABBANI Versus ISLAMABAD OMNI BUS SERVICE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 358 (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 358 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IInd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 358 (PLC) (GHULAM RABBANI Versus ISLAMABAD OMNI BUS SERVICE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Appellant.
- Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A-Scope-Dismissal on account of misconduct-Appellant failing to appear before Inquiry Officer on due date-Enquiry Officer waiting for about a week and receiving no explanation from appellant regarding his inability and failure to produce defence and then giving findings of guilt against appellant-Contention that enquiry was not proper, in circumstances, rejected and no principle of natural justice, held, violated-Refusal to interfere by Junior Labour Court in application under S. 25-A, in circumstances, upheld.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 30-4-1975 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the I. R. O. Petition was rejected. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned order.
3. Brief facts rising to this appeal are that on 28-7-1974 appellant who is a conductor with the respondent was found to have misappropriated certain amounts of tickets. Five passengers were found without ticket but they had paid the amount and in some cases charged the passengers more amount than was given in their tickets. An enquiry was held and appellant was dismissed from service.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that the domestic enquiry was adjourned to 26-11-1974 for defence but on 25-11-1974 appellant could not appear for certain reasons and enquiry officer gave a report with the findings of guilt against the appellant. So enquiry was not held properly. At least appellant should have been asked why he did not produce his defence on 30-11-1974.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has stressed that enquiry report was made on 2-2-1974. Enquiry Officer waited for the reference till that date but appellant did not approach the enquiry officer to produce his defence or to explain his inability to produce defence on 26-11-1973. Enquiry officer after waiting for a week or so submitted the enquiry report.
6. No principle of natural justice has been violated. Enquiry was held properly. It was the bounden duty of the appellant to produce defence on a day fixed for this purpose. It was also for him to explain his inability to produce defence.
7. In that view of the matter, I don't see any reason to interfere into the judgment of the Junior Labour Court. I, therefore maintain the order (if dismissal of the appellant and rejected the appeal.