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

versus


Dismissal for misconduct The Labor Court's order and dismissal of a complaint petition maintained by the Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (section 25, 1969), section 25A & 38 (3).

1984 P L C 1192

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

versus

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Appeal No. RI‑702 of 1982, decided on 13th December, 1983.

Industrial dispute‑

‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus Conductor's case‑Re-issue of used tickets‑Tickets punched for destination different from that for which holders travelling‑No dispute that destination of passengers given on such tickets was different‑Non‑production of disputed tickets before Labour Court, in circumstances, held, immaterial and order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition upheld by Appellate Tribunal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

H. R. Haider for Appellant.

Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th November, 1983.

JUDGMENT

The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 14th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.

2. The allegation against‑the appellant was that he had ‑ issued three used tickets and had realised fare at the rate of 50 paisas per head, misappropriating the amount to his own use, The plea of the appellant was that tickets were not used but due to insufficient light in the bus he had not been able to properly punch them. Not only that the tickets were already punched, but the destination for which the tickets had been previously issued was different from the ones to which their holders were travelling. This shows that the tickets were used and had been re‑issued. The appellant misappropriated the fare recovered on those tickets. No doubt the said used tickets were not produced before the learned lower Court but it makes no difference because the plea of the appellant is not that the destination of the passengers given on them was not different than the ones to which their holders were travelling. If this plea had been raised, of course, in order to varify the destination the presence of the tickets on the record would have been necessary. The appellant was thus rightly dismissed and his grievance petition disallowed.

3. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal being without force is dismissed.

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
immigration advocate from Ahmed pur Sial 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.