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.
Petition No. FD‑139 of 1984, decided on 12th August, 1984.
‑‑‑S.47‑‑Dismissal of workman (office bearer, of trade union) for mis conduct during pendency of industrial dispute Permission for‑‑Domestic enquiry found defective‑‑Statement of accuse not recorded giving him opportunity to explain material brought 891st him by prosecution evidence nor accused allowed to produce defence‑‑Such defects, held, sufficient for refusing permission and order Labour Court refusing permission to dismiss accused, in circumstances, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interferes in revision by Appellate Tribunal Revision Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a).
Date of hearing: 25th July, 1984.
The revision captioned above seeks to give information that the order, dated 11‑4‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, dismissing the petition of the petitioner given under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for permission to dismiss the respondent, is wrong and not borne out by facts.
2. The facts are that the respondent abused the Works Manager Abdul Latif who did not accede to his request to allow the employee to observe strike for the whole day against the disgraceful action of Israelis in Masjid‑e‑Aqsa.
3. I have carefully gone through the enquiry file and the learned lower Court's record. The impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any legal infirmity. During enquiry neither the statement of the respondent was recorded giving him opportunity to explain the material brought against him by the prosecution evidence, nor he was allowed to produce defence. On the close of the prosecution case, no adjournment was given for defence. The respondent did not say that he did not want to adduce any evidence in defence, so it was necessary to give him opportunity. These two defects are sufficient for refusing permission to the petitioner to dismiss the respondent.
4. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.
A. E.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer