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. LHR‑290 of 1985, decided on 1st October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A s 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Bus driver allegedly responsible for accident‑‑No proof that accident was due to rash or negligent act or any fault of accused and accident at best could be treated as a case of contributory negligence‑ Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstance set aside by appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement with back benefits.
Khalid Farooq for Appellant.
Shafiq‑ul‑Islam for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985.
The decision, dated 27‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the bus driven by the appellant struck against a cyclist causing injuries to the latter. Since the cyclist was coming from opposite direction, he was seeing the bus proceeding forward. The same may be said about the appellant. So, it was a case of contributory negligence if at all the appellant is held to be responsible for the accident. The allegation is not that the appellant was driving the bus rashly or negligently. No passenger travelling in the bus or the injured person or any bystander was examined in the inquiry. Sultan Mahmood Assistant Traffic Manager, Muhammad Iqbal, Traffic Manager, were not the eye‑witnesses. The Conductor namely Muhammad Yousaf was examined but he did not depose against the appellant. He did not say that he had seen the cyclist being struck by the bus. He said that when the bus abruptly stopped, he saw that a cyclist was lying injured. He did not say that the appellant was responsible for the accident. So the respondent failed to prove that due to any rash and negligent a et or any other fault of the appellant, the accident had taken place. Tyre learned lower Court missed to, see that the case against the appellant did not stand proved by the‑ evidence produced during the inquiry.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. Since he appears to be guilty of contributor negligence, he is allowed 50% back benefits.
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