1984 PLP 525 (PLC)
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ZAHID
| Citation | 1984 PLP 525 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ZAHID |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 525 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 525 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 525 (PLC) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ZAHID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
In this appeal the decision, dated 28th of October, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the order of stoppage of his increment was set aside.
2. The allegation against the respondent was of habitual late coming. He had come late on 4th, 11th, 12th, 20th and 25th of June, 1979. The learned lower Court accepted the respondent's petition for the reason that the defence produced by the respondent was not considered by the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the respondent was not dismissed, the procedure given in Standing Order 15 was also not to be followed and therefore, the mere fact that the Enquiry officer did not consider the defence was not sufficient to set aside the punishment. This is true that in cases where punishment of dismissal is not awarded, charge‑sheeting and making an enquiry are not necessary but if the employer elects to charge‑sheet and make an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority must consider the defence and the defence evidence produced in the case.
3. The allegation made against the respondent did not amount to misconduct. Only in a month on five days he came late. There should be sufficient instances scattered in some months in order to show that a habit had been developed and improved to come late. The defence was that he had to change many buses to reach the place of duty from his residence and since there was great rush, therefore, he used to be late. However, this explanation was not sufficient. By becoming late on two or three days, the respondent had come to know that unless he started from his house half an hour before, he would not reach in time, therefore, he should have arranged to leave house at such a time that he in view of the traffic difficulties could reach a place of his duty in time.
4. As the allegation did not amount to misconduct, the order of punishment of stoppage of increment was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court although on different grounds. There being no force in the appeal, the same is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.