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 URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER versus RAEES AHMAD


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3) Application of a complaint against dismissal due to mismanagement (1) is not proved but a charge. (2) Accused in situations that were ignored and did not constitute misconduct, without reimbursement granted by the Labor Court, retained by the appellate tribunal.

1984 P L C 1062

(Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab)

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,

Appellate Tribunal

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER

Versus

RAEES AHMAD

Appeal No. LHR‑708 of 1980‑Pb, decided on 30th November, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service for misconduct‑Bus conductor's case‑Charges (1) non issuance of tickets despite receipt of fare and (2) non‑issuance of tickets non‑realisation of fare‑Charge (1) not proved but charge; (2) proved‑Accused in circumstances, held, guilty of negligence and not of misconduct‑Re‑instatement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 21st November, 1982.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 20th August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated but back benefits were not allowed to him on the ground that he had succeeded on account of technical defects only.

2. The facts are that the bus of appellant was checked on 9th September, 1979 and it was found that he had realised fare from ten lady passengers, but had not issued tickets to them. There were seven teen other passengers, who were without tickets and no fare had been recovered from them. The learned lower Court directed the re‑instatement of the respondent on the ground that he was found guilty and dismissed on two charges, but one of those charges did not amount to misconduct. The learned lower Court rightly observed that the allegation that the respondent had neither recovered the fare from seventeen passengers, nor had issued tickets to them, did not amount to misconduct and at the most amounted to negligence or inefficiency. If the Inquiry Officer had not found the respondent guilty of the charge, which did not amount to misconduct, the employer may have prescribed punish ment short of dismissal.

In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent without back benefits.

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
advocate for immigration from Sadiqabad 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.