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. R. L‑741 of 1978, decided on 24th March, 1982.
-----S. O. 12‑Termination of employment‑Order of conviction and cancellation of licence set aside by appellate Court ‑ Reason for termination of service not existing‑Employee reinstated in service without back benefits.
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 1982.
This appeal arises from the decision, 17th June, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, where by the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, therefore, the appeal has been heard ex parte.
2. The ground on which the services of the respondent were termina ted was that the summary Magistrate, P. R. T. B., had fined the respon dent and had cancelled his licence. The stand taken by the respondent before the lower Court was that without charge‑sheeting and making any enquiry against him, the order of termination could not be made. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who cancelled his licence. The order of the Magistrate was on appeal set aside and the respondent acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He, however, was acquitted during the pendency of the grievance petition. Since the services of the respondent were terminated on the sole ground that the licence of the respondent had been cancelled, charge‑sheeting and making enquiry against him were not necessary. However, the reason for which his services were terminated later on ceased to exist, the learned lower Court rightly reinstated the respondent. The learned Presiding Officer, however, has wrongly observed that charge‑sheeting and making enquiry were necessary. Since no order of dismissal was passed, the procedure given in Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not necessary.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal, which is dismissed.
M. I.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer