Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. AK‑804 of 1979. decided on 28th February, 1982.
‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Work alleged to have put in pieces of stone and iron in machine left in his care by another workman‑‑No direct evidence to support allegation‑‑Charge‑sheet based on presumptions‑‑Dismissal merely upon presumption, held, not possible‑ Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1982.
This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 5‑11‑1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits,
2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent was employed by the appellant on 1‑10‑1973 as Watchman. Later on he was appointed as labourer. He was dismissed on 9‑5‑1977, whereupon he brought a grievance petition which resulted in his reinstatement. The allegations against the respondent was that on 7‑4‑1977 at 10‑00 a.m. Mr. Abdur Razzaq after leaving machines under his control left for tea break. Later on peices of stone and iron were found in the machine.
3. The lower Court reinstated the respondent for the reason that there was no direct evidence to the effect that the respondent had put the pieces of iron and stone in the machines and that the Enquiry Officer had brought under consideration extraneous matter. This is evident that nobody had seen the respondent putting the pieces of iron and stone in the machine.
4. Only on presumptions the respondent was charge‑sheeted and found guilty. This is an admitted fact that the respondent was present when Abdur Razzaq came after tea break. The respondent would have slipped away if he had put something in the machines. On mere presumption the respondent could not be dismissed. In these circumstances, his grievance petition was rightly accepted by the learned Labour Court with back benefits. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer