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

KHURSHID BIBI versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 37 Against Counterfeit Worker A dismissal charge sheet on corruption charges was not presented but questioned, charge sheet misconduct, not only a technical error, but the whole proceeding illegal. And without the jurisdiction of the Labor Court to re-instate without privileges, in the circumstances modified by the Appellate Tribunal Holder Worker, entitled the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance (VII) 1968), section O15 (4).

1983 P L C 861

[Labour Appellate Tribunal

Punjab

]

Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

KHURSHID BIBI

versus

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,

SARGODHA

Appeal No. FD‑144 of 1981/Pb., decided on 27th February, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Re‑instatement ‑ Back benefits Workman dismissed for misconduct‑Charge‑sheet not served but enquiry held‑Non‑service of charge‑sheet, held, not only a technical defect but makes whole proceedings as illegal and‑‑without jurisdiction‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits, ' Vr in circumstances, amended by Appellate Tribunal holding workman entitled to back benefits also‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15 (4).

Mansoor‑ur‑Rehman Khan Afidi and Malik Karamat Ali for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 20th February, 1983.

JUDGEMENT

The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 9‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service but back benefits were not allowed to her. In this appeal she claimed back benefits, rand has challenged the impugned decision to this extent.

2. No charge‑sheet was proved to have been delivered to her However, in the enquiry report the enquiry officer said that she disobeyed the transfer order and abused the Sanitary Inspector. Since the allegation contained in the enquiry report amounted to misconduct, following of procedure given in Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was necessary. Delivery of charge‑sheet is must. Enquiry can be ordered only after considering the reply to the charge‑sheet and finding it as unsatisfactory. Since the charge‑sheet was not delivered, no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to explain the allegations made against her. So neither any enquiry could be held against her, nor she could be dismissed. Non‑delivery of charge‑sheet is not only a technical defect but makes the whole proceedings as illegal and without jurisdiction. The appellant, therefore, was entitled to back benefits also. 1. accordingly, accept the appeal and allow back benefits to the appellant,

Appeal accepted.

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
online advocate from Ghuzdar 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.