| Case ID |
0f9060dd-2a13-4e50-87a4-eb8964bdbd20 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
F. D. 144 of 1984 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 23, 1984 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 26, 1984 |
| Decision |
The appeal was accepted, and the decision of the learned lower Court, which had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement in service, was set aside. The appellant, accused of misappropriating fare from two ladies without issuing tickets, was found not guilty due to lack of evidence, including absence of key witnesses. The court ruled that hearsay evidence was insufficient to establish misconduct. The appellant was directed to be reinstated in service but was not entitled to back benefits as he did not prove unemployment after dismissal. |
| Summary |
In a significant ruling by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, the case revolves around the wrongful dismissal of a bus conductor accused of fare misappropriation. The tribunal scrutinized the evidence, highlighting the absence of direct witness testimonies from the passengers involved. This case emphasizes the importance of proper procedural conduct in disciplinary actions against employees. The decision underscores that without solid evidence, especially direct witness accounts, allegations of misconduct cannot be upheld. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent in labor law, reinforcing the need for fair hearings and the protection of employee rights against unfounded accusations. The keywords relevant to this case include 'employee rights', 'misconduct', 'labour law', 'disciplinary action', and 'evidence in employment disputes'. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
|
| Lawyers |
Malik Ghulam Rasool,
Mahboob Alam
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Aslam
|
| Respondents |
Punjab Road Transport Board
|
| Citations |
1985 SLD 1982,
1985 PLC 592
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|