Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUKHTAR HASSAN versus ISLAMABAD OMNIBUS SERVICE


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 36D Termination Due to the Presence of a Witness Inquiry Officer's Administration, Not Legally Required, In these circumstances, the applicant may, in these circumstances, present the Inquiry Officer as his intellect. Is, in the case of dispute, rejection

1976 P L C 24

[Labour Court Punjab]

Present: Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer

MUKHTAR HASSAN

Versus

ISLAMABAD OMNIBUS SERVICE

Appeal No. 346 of 1975, decided on 22nd August 1975.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

-- Ss. 25-A & 36-D-Dismissal due to misconduct-Junior Labour Court upholding dismissal--Appeal pressed on contention that Inquiry Officer was not produced as a witness before Junior Labour Court Inquiry Officer had also been dismissed and was not likely to depose in favour of Management-Appearance of Inquiry Officer as witness, held, not necessary legally-Petitioner, in circumstances, held, could himself produce Inquiry Officer as his own wit, ass - Contention in circums tances, rejected.

Muhammad Sadiq Variach for Appellant.

Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.

ORDER

This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 18-7-75 passed by learned Presiding Officer Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition filed under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. Petition was rejected; hence this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant was a Conductor of the respondent. In a raid on his bus 12 passengers were found ticketless, including 8 ladies passengers. All of them were found ticketless while discussing at Central Hospital stop. An enquiry was made into his misconduct and he was found guilty and was dismissed from service.

4. The only grievance of the appellant is that Mr. Gul Bahar, Enquiry Officer, was not produced as a witness before the Junior Labour Court. Under law it is not necessary but in the instant case it is stated that he has been dismissed from service and was not likely to depose in favour of the respondent. If this was the position, then appellant could himself produce his as his own witness. There is no force in this contention.

5. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in the appeal. Order of the Junior Labour Court is upheld and appeal is rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
list of advocates from Talamba lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.