1989 PLP 243 (PLC)
D1VIS10NAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY Versus KHUDA BAKHSH
| Citation | 1989 PLP 243 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | D1VIS10NAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY Versus KHUDA BAKHSH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 243 (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 1989 PLP 243 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1989 PLP 243 (PLC) (D1VIS10NAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY Versus KHUDA BAKHSH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fakhar-ud-Din for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 38(3-a)--Suspension--Employee can be suspended if he is under arrest--Employee already on bail--Order of suspension of employee, held, was not justified and was against rule. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A & 38(3-a)--Suspension--Employee can be suspended if he is under arrest--Employee already on bail--Order of suspension of employee, held, was not justified and was against rule. Fakhar-ud-Din for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988. The revision captioned above reports that the order dated 24-4-1988 whereby the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has suspended the suspension order is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts are that a report was made against the respondent that the petitioner allowed a person to travel in the train without purchasing ticket. A departmental action was taken and simultaneously the case was reported to the Police. The respondent was censured by way of taking departmental action. Thereafter, the Railway Ministry accorded sanction for prosecution and for this reason the respondent was suspended. The respondent has challenged his suspension order before the learned lower Court. Sanction for prosecution is dated 11-1-1988 whereas the respondent has been released on bail somewhere in 1985. According to the rules the employee can be suspended if he is under arrest. Since the respondent had already been bailed out, prima facie the suspension order was not justified. In these circumstances the impugned order whereby the order of suspension has been suspended does not appear to be against any rule.
3. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed. M.Y.H./562/Lb.P. Petition dismissed.