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

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN


West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O 15 (3) (c) Mismanagement Trying to damage an employer's goods or property is not equivalent to a mismanagement charge sheet stating that There was no damage. Only the attempt to harm was made in charge of the situation, held, not equivalent to mismanagement
1985 P L C 782

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

Versus

PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN

Revision No. MN‑244 of 1984, decided on 23rd February, 1985.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

--S. O. 15 (3) (c)‑Misconduct‑Loss to employer's goods or pro perty ‑ To make attempt to cause loss ‑ Does not amount to misconduct ‑Charge‑sheet mentioning that no loss was caused and only attempt to cause loss was made‑Charge-in circumstances, held, did not amount to misconduct.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner.

Abdul Majid Sindhu for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 16th February, 1985.

JUDGMENT

The order dated 30th September, 1984 granting permission to dismiss the petitioner is said to be wrong.

2. The allegation was that the appellant had with the help of the driver forged road test pass for Bus No. 9621 and took the bus out of the yard for 20 minutes. No inquiry was held on the plea that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer was not examined before the learned lower Court to prove the fact that the petitioner had made confession before him, nor the so‑called confession/ admission was put to him. As a matter of fact, none of the parties pro duced any evidence before the learned lower Court. In the alleged con fession a word "NAA, NAA" is decipherable. In the said statement had been put to the petitioner, he may have explained the confession if he had admitted the statement. The charge‑sheet suggests that no loss was caused to the respondent and only attempt to cause loss was made. To make an attempt to cause loss does not amount to misconduct. However, if the petitioner admits his confession question may arise if the forgery stands proved or not. The case thus needs further inquiry.

3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impug ned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the matter of giving permission be re-decided.

A. E.

Revision 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
list of supreme court advocates from Lalshanra 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.