Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM RASOOL VS Respondent: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; P NKISTAN RAILWAYS, JUDGMENT
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title:GHULAM RASOOL vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; P NKISTAN RAILWAYS,
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1983 PLC 272 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment JUDGMENT Labour Court No. .7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance- petition of the appellant for his re- instatement was dismissed. 2. The appellant was S. S. Fitter. On 6-9-77 he was convicted and sentenced to six months' R.I. Under section 379, P,P.C. On account of being convicted and sentenced he was dismissed from service on 28-2-78 without being charge-sheeted and an enquiry held against him. He received the order of dismissal on 4-4-78 as admitted by him in his grievance petition. The grievance petition was brought on 2-4-80 which obviously was hopelessly time-barred. The grievance notice was also time-barred, as. It was given on 13-3-80. 3. Rule 8 of Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 provides that where an employee has been sentenced to fine or imprisonment he can be dismissed or removed from service and rule 5 would not apply. The conviction of the appellant by the Criminal Court under section 379, P.P.C. Is an admitted fact and the order of dismissal) shows that only on this ground the appellant was dismissed. No illegality was therefore committed by the competent authority in not holding inquiry against the appellant. 4. In these circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.