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.GA‑149 of 1985, decided on 16th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct of refusal to obey transfer order‑‑Service of transfer order not established by any enquiry‑‑Labour Court observing that petitioner was absent also‑‑Absence not a charge leading to impugned action‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal directing re‑instatement of petitioner appellant.
Sardar Muhammad Adeeb representative for Appellant.
Ch Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 16‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the services of the appellant were terminated was that he had refused to obey the transfer order. The appellant ‑contended in his statement before the learned lower Court that he was not served with any transfer order, nor he refused to obey any such order. The employee who is alleged to have served the transfer order and charge‑sheet etc. was not examined. The documents Exhs. R.1 to R.5 were not put to the appellant in cross‑examination and it was not inquired from him if these documents were offered to him and he refused to receive the same. R.W.1 admitted that he did not serve the said letters nor in his presence the appellant had thumb marked them. So service of the said documents was not proved. No inquiry was held as no inquiry proceedings are on the file. The learned lower Court missed to consider these facts and thus fell in error in finding that the abovementioned documents were served upon the appellant. The dismissal order, therefore, is not maintainable. The learned lower Court has also observed that the appellant was absent from 11‑5‑1983 but he missed to see that there was no charge of absence.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. However, he is not entitled to back benefits as he did not say that after his dismissal, he remained jobless. He said that "these days I am not in service" but by it he meant to say that he was not in the service of the respondent.
A.E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer