Find a Lawyer

Revision No. LHR‑62 of 1984, decided on 16th August, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 47‑‑Dismissal of office‑bearer of trade union of workers during pendency of industrial dispute‑‑Permission for‑‑Dismissal sought for misconduct‑‑Domestic enquiry ex parte without notice of date to accused and without defence opportunity‑‑Permission, in circumstances, held, rightly refused by Labour Court.

Faizullah Khan for Petitioner.

Azhar Ali Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th August, 1984.

The above‑captioned revision seeks to give information that the order, dated 9 ‑1‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore is wrong and illegal.

2. The respondent being an office‑holder of the union, a petition was lodged under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for permission to dismiss him. The allegation against him was of absence without leave. The ground given by the learned lower Court for rejecting the petition is that the enquiry was not held in the presence of the respondent. The date of enquiry was 3‑2‑1980 but abruptly the enquiry was held on 29‑1‑1980 without prior notice to the respondent about the change of date, with the result that the respondent could not participate in it The proceedings of 29‑1 1980 do not bear the signatures of the respondent as is evident from the comparison of his signatures in Urdu appearing on the opening page of enquiry with e the signatures of various persons appearing on the proceedings of 29‑1‑1980. The respondent was thus not given opportunity to defend himself. No statement of the respondent was recorded that his reply to the charge sheet be treated as his statement in defence. The petition thus, has been rightly dismissed and there appears no legal infirmity in impugned order.

3. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

A. E.

Revision 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.