| Case ID |
23040e7b-f08c-48f5-8aa1-070e59f6c8d6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Revision No. MN-244 of 1984 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 23, 1985 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 16, 1985 |
| Decision |
The order dated 30th September, 1984 granting permission to dismiss the petitioner is said to be wrong. The allegation was that the appellant had with the help of the driver forged road test pass for Bus No. 9621 and took the bus out of the yard for 20 minutes. No inquiry was held on the plea that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer was not examined before the learned lower Court to prove the fact that the petitioner had made confession before him, nor the so-called confession/ admission was put to him. As a matter of fact, none of the parties produced any evidence before the learned lower Court. The charge-sheet suggests that no loss was caused to the respondent and only attempt to cause loss was made. To make an attempt to cause loss does not amount to misconduct. However, if the petitioner admits his confession question may arise if the forgery stands proved or not. The case thus needs further inquiry. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the matter of giving permission be re-decided. |
| Summary |
The case involves the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the dismissal of an employee from the Punjab Road Transport Board. The tribunal found that the charge against the employee, which alleged misconduct for attempting to forge a road test pass, did not constitute actual misconduct since no loss was incurred. The case highlights the importance of due process and the need for proper inquiry before dismissing an employee. The tribunal emphasized that mere attempts without resulting harm do not justify dismissal. This ruling underscores the significance of evidentiary standards in employment law and the protection of employees' rights in disciplinary matters. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
|
| Entities Involved |
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN
|
| Judges |
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI
|
| Lawyers |
Nazir Ahmad Naz,
Abdul Majid Sindhu
|
| Petitioners |
|
| Respondents |
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN
|
| Citations |
1985 SLD 2116,
1985 PLC 782
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance (VI of 1968)
|
| Sections |
S. O. 15 (3) (c)
|