Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑695 of 1981. decided on 1st March, 1982.

Industrial dispute‑--

-‑‑Misconduct‑Railway servant occupying residential quarter un authorisedly and refusing to vacate though called for to do so repeatedly‑Held : Rightly charged for misconduct‑Dismissal from service challenged in grievance petition‑Factum of unauthorized occupation of quarter admitted before Labour Court‑Dismissal of grievance petition by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A and 38 (3).

M. A. Hakeem for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 1st March, 1982.

The appellant, who was employed as electrical helper in the Pakistan Railways at Sukkur, was dismissed from service. vide order dated 28th August. 1980, on the charge of unauthorizedly occupying Railway's quarter No. 69JC. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal from service before the learned VIIth Labour Court through a grievance petition filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O., but the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that it has been admitted by the appellant himself in his evidence before it that be had occuppied the said quarter unauthorizedly. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. The sole issue which arises for consideration in these proceedings is whether the appellant has occupied the quarter in question lawfully or unauthorizedly. Mr. M. A. Hakeem, the learned representative for the appellant, sought to argue that the appellant had occupied the quarter in the normal course and it was his right to occupy the same. On being asked whether there was any allotment order in favour of the appellant in respect of the said quarter, he was forced to admit that no such allot ment order had been issued in favour of the appellant. In his cross -examination before the learned Labour Court, the appellant has admitted that no allotment order had been given to him in respect of the quarter in question. He has thus conceded the position that he was occupying the said quarter unauthorizedly. In view of this admission of this,, misconduct of the appellant is duly established. Since the appellant wasp occupying the quarter without permission or without allotment order and had refused to vacate the same although called upon several times to dog so, the charge which was framed against the appellant was established by his own conduct and on the basis of the record. I would accordingly concur the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine.

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.