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

MUHAMMAD SHABBIR versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION


The statement of the domestic inquiry is not recorded, there is no indication that the accused was asked to make his statement mandatory dismissal. , Section 25A & 38 (3)

1984 P L C 595

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab],

Present . Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD SHABBIR

versus

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Appeal No. LHR‑218 of 1983, decided on 28th February, 1984.

Industrial dispute‑

‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Statement of accused not recorded‑‑No indica tion that accused was asked to give his statement‑Consequential dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement without back benefits‑Indus trial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th February, 1984.

JUDGMENT

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 4th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegations against the appellant were that he had realised fare from three lady passengers but had not issued tickets to them. He took up the plea that there were children with the ladies who may have destroyed the tickets issued by him. He also pleaded that the passengers in order to save themselves implicated him.

3. There appears to be no other defect in the enquiry, except that the statement of the appellant was not recorded by the enquiry officer. It is written in the order sheet by the enquiry officer that the appellant could not give statement. This order does not show that the appellant was asked to give his statement. If the order had been that the appellant refused to get his statement recorded, it could be assumed that opportunity was given to him to make statement. Moreover, the signatures of the appellant were not received on the said order sheet.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. As the appellant has succeed on a technical ground, he is not allowed back benefits.

A. E.

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
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Piplan 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.