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‑587 of 1983, decided on 8th December, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 38(3)‑‑Appeal‑‑Scope‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Labour Court holding domestic enquiry not proper without pointing out defects therein and passing order converting penalty of dismissal into that of censure‑‑Order of Labour Court appealed against by employer and workman neither filing appeal nor cross objections‑ Appellate Tribunal coming to conclusion that enquiry was defective being without opportunity of defence and such defect sufficient to set aside resultant penalty order‑‑in absence of any appeal or cross objections by workman Appellate Tribunal, held, could pass no order except to dismiss appeal of employer.
Ehsan Hyder, Court Clerk of Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984.
The decision, dated 26‑11‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the punishment of dismissal was converted into censure and the learned lower Court warned the respondent.
2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service after being charge‑sheeted and holding enquiry against him was that he had on 24‑2‑1981 refused to take Bus No. 1685 on route The learned lower Court has held that enquiry was not properly held but has not pointed out the defects. In spite of finding fault with the enquiry, the learned lower Court found the respondent guilty and remarked that the punishment of dismissal was harsh. In reality, the enquiry is defective. No opportunity was given to the respondent to produce his representative. The respondent was enquired if he wanted to appoint any representative. The respondent informed the Enquiry Officer that his representative was Munir Hussain and as the enquiry was being held on the day on which he was enquired about the appointment of representative, the representative had not come. Request for adjournment was refused. Since the respondent was not afforded opportunity to produce his representative, he could not properly defence himself in the enquiry. This defect was sufficient to set aside the A penalty awarded to the respondent by the appellant: Since the respondent has neither appealed nor has brought cross objections, no other order can be passed, except dismissing the appeal.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer