Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Appeal No. LBR‑204 of 1982, decided on 14th December, 1983.
‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑ Findings in favour of accused‑Punishing authority passing penalty order‑Such order. held, not sustainable Punishing authority disagreeing with findings of enquiry, held, should order re‑enquiry, by another Enquiry Officer‑ Re-statement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Aftab Ahmad for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 10th December, 1983.
The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 21st February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service but no order was passed as to .back benefits.
2. Bus No. 2193 conducted by the respondent was checked on 13th January, 1981 at Chak No. 44. Three passengers travelling from Chishtian to Chak No. 44, fiva passengers going to Chak No. 131 from Chishtian, two passengers travelling from Chishtian to Dahranwala and one passenger travelling from Chishtian to Haroonabad were found without tickets and fare had been realised from them by the respondent. Passengers' state ments were recorded that are Exhs. R. 3 to R. 7. The Enquiry Officer showed a soft corner to the respondent by saying in his report that large number of students were travelling in the bus who quarrelled with the respondent on the payment of fare, so possibility cannot be excluded that due to the quarrel the respondent could not issue tickets to the passengers. If the District Manager disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer he should have ordered re‑enquiry appointing another person as Enquiry officer, but while accepting the report could not convict the respon dent. So, in these circumstances, the learned lower Court rightly directed the re‑instatement of the respondent in service without back, benefits.
3. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer