Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Respondent: ALI ASGHAR,Nemo
1993 P L C 162
1993 P L C 162
[Lahore High Court]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Versus
ALI ASGHAR and 2 others
W.Ps. Nos. 9110 and 9106 of 1991, decided on 14th July, 1992.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.O. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal found that employees had not committed any misconduct as alleged by employer‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal also noted that officer concerned was not examined in case as a witness by employer despite plea of employees that they had prepared document in question under, orders of officer concerned‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal also noticed that charge‑sheet was not served upon employees within prescribed period‑‑‑Findings of fact by .Tribunal were not shown to suffer from any misreading or non‑consideration of material evidence‑‑‑High Court declined interference in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Ghazi MA. Rashid and A.R. Arshad Malik for Petitioner.
Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 26th May, 1992.
JUDGMENT
This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 9110/91 and W.P. No.9106/91 as common questions of taw and facts arise therein.
2. Ali Asghar respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 9110/91 and Muhammad Idrees respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 91t0/91 were working as Patwari and Kanungo in the employment of the petitioners. They were removed from service for having fabricated certain documents. They challenged their termination from service by filing two separate applications under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which were accepted by the Punjab Labour Court on 12th May, 1991. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged these orders by preferring appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which were dismissed on 30th June, 1991. Hence these petitions.
3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that neither the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1908 were applicable to the workmen in the employment of the petitioner and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has been found to be without any substance by this Court in the connected matter namely W. P. 2924 of 1986, wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1.
4. As regards the merits, it was held by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that respondent No.l/employees had not committed any misconduct. It was noted in this respect that the Land Acquisition Collector Was not examined as a witness by the petitioner despite the plea of the respondents that, they had prepared the document in question under his orders. It was also noticed that the charge‑sheet was not served upon respondent No. 1 within the period prescribed by West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. These, findings of fact are not shown to suffer from any misreading or non consideration of material evidence and are not liable to interfere with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
As a result of what has been stated above these petitions are found to be without any force and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear, their own costs.
H.B.T./L‑30/L Petitions dismissed.