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

WAPDA versus MUHAMMAD MALIK


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3) Complaint against dismissal on charges of misconduct WAPDA employee (meter reader) was not charged within the charge sheet illegally recovering happiness, the accused in the circumstances Domestic investigation conducted in absence of Labor Court, allowed to accept complaint complaint

1984 P L C 1022

(Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS

Versus

MUHAMMAD MALIK

Appeal No. G. A. 160 of 1982/Pb., decided on 28th April, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑-Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for mis conduct‑WAPDA employee (Meter Reader) charged for receipt of illegal gratification ‑‑ Charge‑sheet served not within time ‑Domestic enquiry held in absence of accused ‑ Labour Court in circumstances, held, justified in accepting grievance petition.

Mien lqbal Khalid for Appellants.

Date of hearing : 12th April, 1982.

JUDGMENT

In the present appeal the decision, dated 7th February, 19 2 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and the order of his dismissal was set aside. Back benefits were not given for the reason that the respondent was still holding the post and had not left the charge.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had received Rs. 400 as illegal gratification for the installation of a meter. On the report Exh. R. I of the Director Complaints and Investigation, WAPDA, dated 29th July, 1978 action was taken. The report was lodged in 1978 but the charge‑sheet was issued on 21st January, 1979. In the charge sheet it is not mentioned as to when the misconduct had come to the notice of the employer. Even in evidence it has not been shown that the charge‑sheet is within time. The charge‑sheet, therefore, was time‑barred. The complaint was lodged by Mukhtar Bibi upon which proceedings were started. No enquiry in the presence of the respondent was made as is evidence from the documents brought on the record of the lower Court. A No witness was examined in his presence, nor he was afforded opportunity to cross‑examine them. No opportunity of defence was given. In these circumstances, the lower Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.

A. E. 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
famous high court advocate from Dunyapur 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.