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

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LAHORE versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE


West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O15 (2) (iv) The dismissal of the employee on the charge of misconduct was challenged before a Labor Court employee not found guilty of corruption and the Tribunal An order was restored to the existing service order. : Most respondents were negligent or inadequate because no evils were committed, so the dismissal order was not lasting and was rightly set aside.

1985 P L C 849

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LAHORE

Versus

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

Appeal No. LHR‑227 of 1984, decided on 5th August, 1984.

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

‑‑S. O. 15 (2) (iv)‑Dismissal from service on charge of misappro priation challenged before Labour Court‑Employee not found guilty of misconduct and ordered to be reinstated in service‑Order challenged before Tribunal‑Held: At most respondent was negligent or inefficient--Since no misconduct was committed, dismissal order was not sustainable and was rightly set aside.

Rana Faiz Ullah Khan for Appellant.

Yousaf Hussain Dilawari for Respondent

Date of hearing : 24th July, 1984:

JUDGMENT

The decision dated 31st March, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. Bus No. 3633 was checked at Shah Alam Gate. Ten lady passengers were without tickets from whom no fare had been realised by the respondent. Since no fare had been recovered, this is not a case of mis appropriation. At the most the respondent was negligent or inefficient. Even though the Enquiry Officer said that this was not a case of misconduct or of "missing", yet the respondent was dismissed. Since no misconduct was committed, the dismissal order was not sustainable and was rightly set aside.

3. As a result appeal fails and is dismissed.

M.I.

Appeal dismissed.

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
jobs for advocates from Zahir Pir 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.