Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SARWAR SHAKIR VS Respondent: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR
1988 P L C 481
1988 P L C 481
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD SARWAR SHAKIR
Versus
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR
Appeal No. BR-359 of 1987, decided on 5th December, 1987.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.0.15(4)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A & 38(3)--Dismissal for misconduct--Charge-Sheet admittedly time -barred--Action pursuant to such charge-sheet, held, was not sustainable--Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against impugned dismissal order set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re-instatement without back benefits but with future benefit of annual increment which would have been earned by appellant workman.
Muhammad Ikram for Appellant.
Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th December, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 30-9-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The allegation made against the appellant was that he had deposited the income for the date of 25-8-1985 less than what actually had been earned. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge-sheet was time-barred. The date of charge -sheet is 23-9-1985 and it bears the signatures of the appellant in token of receiving the same and the date put under the signatures is 13-11-1985. No plausible explanation put forward in the evidence and during the arguments. Since the very charge-sheet was time-barred, no action could be taken against the appellant. The learned lower ` Court has not adverted to this fact of the case and thus has fallen in error in dismissing the grievance petition.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant has not specifically said that right from the date of dismissal he remained jobless.
4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order and the order of dismissal the appellant is directed to be reinstated in the service without back benefits. However, the respondent shall have to add in pay for future annual increments E which but for the illegal order of dismissal the appellant would have earned.
A .E. /469/Lb.P Appeal accepted.