Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Appeal No. 1051 of 1973, decided on 17th January 1974.
-- S. 25-A-Dismissal due to misconduct-No regular enquiry held Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Junior Labour Court.
The above-named appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27-11-1973, passed by Junior Labour Court, D. G. Khan, whereby as application mate by the respondent under section 25-A of the 1. R. O., 1969, was accepted and he was ordered to be re-instated with all back benefits.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted for mis appropriating a Crown Wheel Bearing. After an enquiry he was dismissed from service. He made an application to the Junior Labour Court, D. G. Khan for re-instatement. The Junior Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. The appellant preferred an appeal to this Court which was accepted and the case was sent back to the Junior Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with la. The parties appeared before the Junior Labour Court and on 10-11-1973 made statements that they did not want to produce any more evidence. The Junior Labour Court accepted the petition as mentioned above. I have gone through the record. Mr. Jan Muhammad Works Manager who conducted the enquiry appeared as R. W. and stated that he did not hold any regular enquiry against the appellant. The learned Representative of the respondent contended that after the preliminary enquiry conducted by Jan Muhammed, a regular enquiry was also held against the appellant, in which he was found guilty. He requested the Court to permit him to produce the enquiry proceedings, but the premission was refused on the ground that the request was made at a belated stage. Moreover, full opportunity was given to the parties in the Junior Labour Court to produce their evidence after the remand order, but they declined to do so. Their statements to that effect are on the file of the Junior Labour Court. Since it is admitted that no regular enquiry was held against the appellant, there fore the order of his dismissal from service is unsustainable. The order of the learned Junior Labour Court is well-reasoned and calls for no interference.
For the foregoing reason I find no merits in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer