1978 PLC 247 (PLP)
PAKISTANI ENGINEERING Co. LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF
| Citation | 1978 PLC 247 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTANI ENGINEERING Co. LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLC 247 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLC 247 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLC 247 (PLP) (PAKISTANI ENGINEERING Co. LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
S. O. 15‑Domestic inquiry‑Person having personal knowledge of charge‑Held, disqualified and incompetent to be an Inquiry Officer. Khalid Jamil for Appellant Respondent in person Date of hearing: 7th September 1977 This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondent on an application made by him under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. He was charge‑sheeted for misconduct and after inquiry he was found guilty. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. After the service of grievance notice, he approached Labour Court. The application was resisted by filing written statement and various pleas were taken. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Office found fault with the domestic inquiry and, therefore, ordered re‑instatement. 3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the argument I find no force in this appeal. The learned Presiding Officer had dealt with various grounds, which vitiated domestic inquiry but I will confine myself with one ground only which relates to the Inquiry Officer himself. In the cross‑examination the Inquiry Officer had admitted that be had personal knowledge about the case and had also dealt with it as he was the Deputy Manager. Administration. Thus the inquiry conducted by a person having personal knowledge was highly improper and undesirable. This is a grave illegality, which vitiates the domestic inquiry. It must be no that the person having a personal knowledge is disqualified and i incompetent to be an Inquiry Officer. 4. In result I dismiss the appeal. However, it is open to the appellant to appoint another Inquiry Officer and hold fresh inquiry on the same charges and take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.