Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

versus


The Labor Court cannot reduce or impose any other type of punishment for punishing a misconduct authority. It was alleged that employees accused of using hot words against the security inspector were not dismissed from the job and were told that the allegation was not merely for observation and for mismanagement. Hot words exchanges so if the opportunity for a personal hearing was made, the manager could only recommend a Labor Court order, in which case, the appellate tribunal had presented a separate case and the matter would have been settled for a new decision. Received Remand, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII of 1969), Sections 25A and 38 (3)

1985 P L C 777

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS AND DISTILLERY LTD. FAISALABAD

Versus

MUMTAZ MOHY‑UD‑DIN

Appeal No. F. D.‑46 of 1984, decided on 9th March, 1985.

Industrial dispute‑

‑‑Misconduct ‑ Prescribing punishment‑Discretion of punishing authority‑Labour Court can neither reduce nor impose another kind of penalty‑Accused charged for using hot words against Security Inspector‑Dismissed from service‑Labour Court not stating that allegation did not amount to misconduct awarding reinstatement simply by observing that "this was a case of exchange of hot words so if opportunity of personal hearing had been given Manager may have only admonished accused" ‑‑ Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for fresh decision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A and 38 (3).

Khalid Farooq Qureshi for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1985.

JUDGMENT

The decision dated 25th January, 1984 passed by the learned Presid ing Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed was that he had used hot words against Muhammad Sharif, Security Inspector. The learned lower Court has not passed a speaking order. It is observed by in Court "this was a case of exchange of hot words with the Security Inspector, so if opportunity of personal hearing had been given, the Manager may have only admonished the respondent." It is not said that the allegation made against the respondent did not amount to mis conduct. In case of misconduct the punishing authority has the discre tion to prescribe punishment and Labour Courts cannot reduce or impose another kind of penalty. The case, therefore, is liable to be remanded for fresh decision according to law.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugn ed decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for fresh decision.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
power of attorney advocate Mithi lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.