| Case ID |
17a27e01-287e-40a8-b93c-e8255743191b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
SA-384 of 1980/Pb |
| Decision Date |
Sep 16, 1981 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 31, 1981 |
| Decision |
The Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, upheld the dismissal of Abdul Sattar by the Punjab Road Transport Board. The appellant, Abdul Sattar, was dismissed for habitual absence amounting to 15 days over a period of four months. The tribunal found that the appellant did not file any application for rest periods and did not have a legitimate excuse for the absences, which were deemed to constitute misconduct. The tribunal thoroughly examined the attendance records and supporting documents, concluding that the appellant's absence was neither on authorized leave nor for valid reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the board's decision to terminate the appellant's employment based on the established legal provisions. |
| Summary |
In the seminal case of Abdul Sattar versus Punjab Road Transport Board, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of Punjab delivered a definitive judgment on September 16, 1981, under the citation 1984 SLD 1626 and 1984 PLC 1048. This case revolves around the stringent enforcement of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, XXVIII of 1961, particularly Section 4 concerning habitual absence. The appellant, Abdul Sattar, faced dismissal due to accumulating 15 days of absence over four months without continuous presence. Despite claims of being on authorized rest, the tribunal meticulously reviewed attendance records and determined that no formal application for rest was made, as mandated by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, VI of 1968, Section O. 13 (3)(e). This section outlines the procedures for granting exceptions and compensatory rest, which Abdul Sattar failed to utilize, thereby invalidating his justification for the absences. The legal representation included Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for the appellant and Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for the respondent, Punjab Road Transport Board. The tribunal's exhaustive analysis underscored the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements for rest and absence, emphasizing that unauthorized absences, even if intermittent, constitute grounds for dismissal under the prevailing labor laws. This judgment not only reinforced the strict compliance expected from employees under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance but also served as a benchmark for future cases involving employee absenteeism and disciplinary actions within the transportation sector. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding labor regulations and ensuring fair employment practices, making it a pivotal reference for legal professionals and employers alike seeking clarity on the implementation of labor ordinances and the ramifications of policy non-compliance. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of proper documentation and procedural adherence in employment disputes, providing a clear precedent for the adjudication of similar cases in labor appellate tribunals across the region. By affirming the dismissal, the tribunal reinforced the authority of the Punjab Road Transport Board to enforce its disciplinary measures, thereby maintaining organizational integrity and operational efficiency. This case remains a critical study for legal scholars and practitioners focusing on labor law, employee rights, and employer obligations within the framework of Pakistani legal statutes. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal
|
| Entities Involved |
Punjab Road Transport Board,
Road Transport Board,
Labour Appellate Tribunal
|
| Judges |
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi,
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL SATTAR
|
| Respondents |
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 1626,
1984 PLC 1048
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Road Transport Workers Ordinance, XXVIII of 1961,
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, VI of 1968
|
| Sections |
S. 4,
S. O. 13 (3) (e)
|