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

PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD versus RIASAT ALI


West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O 12 (5) Termination of Service Allegations of witnesses Al Inquiry into the allegation The Respondent received the fare from the passengers without issuing a ticket Copy of the form in the passenger inquiry statements No record TT40 was also not provided in the circumstances, justification for respondents in service

1984 P L C 47

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal PUNJAB

ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD

versus

RIASAT ALI

Appeal No. FD‑82U of 1979IPb., decided on 2nd October, 1982.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. O. 12(5)‑Termination of service‑Non‑recording of witnesses' statements in inquiry on‑Allegation, respondent recovered fare from passengers without issuing tickets‑In inquiry statements of passen gers not recorded.‑Copy of form TT‑40 also not given on spot‑Held. in circumstances, respondent's re‑instatement in service justified.

Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Appellant.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The appeal directed against the decision dated 14th December 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faislabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had recovered fare from two passengers going to Lhak No. 46 but had not issued tickets to them. There were three other passengers going to Lalian from whom the respondent is alleged to have recovered the fare but had not issued tickets. The statements of the passengers were not recorded, with the result that whatever the checkers stated in this respect was hearsay. Obviously, the fare could be recovered by the respondent before the checking was done and the passengers could tell the checking party about it. Recording of the statement of the passengers therefore, was necessary. One of the checkers namely Amir Abdullah stated before the Enquiry Officer that the copy of form TT‑40 was not given to the respondent on the spot. No reason ha4B been given for not delivering the copy on the spot. Since the copy was not delivered, there were chances for the checking party to make additions in form TT‑40 after it was prepared and on it signatures of the respondents were received. In these circumstances, the Lower Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order and directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

K. M. A. 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
online advocate from Tarbela 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.