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

versus


Railway Servants (Qualification and Discipline) Rules 1975 Pakistan Railway Servants (Performance and Discipline) Rule Railway employees were convicted by a criminal court under S. 379 of Pakistan Panel Code 186 and sentenced to six months. RI dismissal without charge sheet and inquiry held, not guilty of any illegal complaint request, rightly rejected by the Labor Court Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Sections 25A & 38

1983 P L C 272

[Labour Appellate Tribunal

Punjab

]

Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

GHULAM RASOOL

versus

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; P NKISTAN RAILWAYS,

RAWALPINDI

Appeal No. RI‑721 of 1980, decided on 2nd November, 1982.

Pakistan Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules‑‑‑R. 8‑‑Railway servant convicted by Criminal Court under S 379 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to six months' R. I‑Dismissal without charge‑sheet and inquiry, held, not suffering from any illegality‑Grievance petition, held; rightly dismissed by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Appellant in person.

Agha Tai Muhammad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 2nd November, 1982.

JUDGEMENT

In this appeal the' decision dated 20‑9‑1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No..7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance‑ petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant was S. S. Fitter. On 6‑9‑77 he was convicted and sentenced to six months' R.I. under section 379, P,P.C. On account of being convicted and sentenced he was dismissed from service on 28‑2‑78 without being charge‑sheeted and an enquiry held against him. He received the order of dismissal on 4‑4‑78 as admitted by him in his grievance petition. The grievance petition was brought on 2‑4‑80 which obviously was hopelessly time‑barred. The grievance notice was also time‑barred, as. it was given on 13‑3‑80.

3. Rule 8 of Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 provides that where an employee has been sentenced to fine or imprisonment he can be dismissed or removed from service and rule 5 would not apply. The conviction of the appellant by the Criminal Court under section 379, P.P.C. is an admitted fact and the order of dismissal) shows that only on this ground the appellant was dismissed. No illegality was therefore committed by the competent authority in not holding inquiry against the appellant.

4. In these circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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
us immigration advocates from Naudero 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.