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. LHR‑369 of 1984, decided on 22nd July, 1984.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15‑‑Negligence or inefficiency‑‑Misconduct‑‑Bus Conductor's case Ticket-less passengers‑‑No allegation that fare realised‑‑No mis appropriation‑‑Alleged charge would amount to negligence or inefficiency and not to misconduct‑‑Dismissal from service for such charge, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Rana Faiz Ullah for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 17th July, 1984.
The appeal titled above arises from the decision, dated 23‑4‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2 Lahore, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he did not issue tickets to six passengers travelling from Ichhra to Green Town. No allegation that he had realized fare from the said passengers, so no) misappropriation had taken place. The plea of the respondent that due to rush he could not issue tickets was worth consideration and rightly found favour with the learned lower Court. At the most the case is of negligence or inefficiency, which does not amount to misconduct. Habitual negligence is misconduct but charge is not of habitual negligence. Apart from it for habitutal negligence there should be sufficient instances of negligence and not one. The respondent, therefore, was rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.
3. As a result the appeal is dismissed in limine.
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