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.
Revision Petition No. LHR-255 of 1983, decided on 18th April, 1984.
---S.47--Dismissal for misconduct during pendency of industrial dispute--Domestic enquiry so defective as fatal to sustain dismissal order--Refusal to grant permission for dismissal by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3-a).
Asghar Mahmood for Petitioner.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th April, 1984.
The revision captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 19-7-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, dismissing the petition of the petitioner lodged under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The respondent is a conductor. The allegation is that from four lady passengers he had realised fare but had not issued tickets to them. Out of those passengers two, after completing their journey, were getting down from the bus when the checking was made and the remaining two were yet travelling in the bus.
3. The respondent replied to the report made in Form TT-40 that the passengers had made false statements regarding recovery of fare. The learned lower Court has refused. permission under section 47 on the ground that only one witness was examined during the enquiry, inasmuch as the other witness, who was present during the recording of the statement of the previous witness, said that his statement was the same as that of the other witness. Even if one witness appeared, it was not sufficient ground to refuse the permission. However, the enquiry proceedings do not show that opportunity of defence was afforded A to the respondent. So, this defect was fatal to the case and even if permission had been given, the order of dismissal would have been liable to rejection in a regular petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. As a result, the revision has no force and is rejected.
A. E.
Revision rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer