Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1984 PLC 1193

ULFAT BAIG vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD

Citation1984 PLC 1193
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No, FD-719 of 1982
Date1984-01-16
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
ResultAppeal accepted

' The appeal titled above emerges from the decision, dated 7th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad.

2. Bus No, 9613 conducted by the appellant was checked on 9th February, 1982 and six passengers are alleged to be without tickets who had paid the fare. Six N. C. Tickets were issued. Passengers' statements are alleged to have been recorded and produced in evidence during the enquiry. The case has been fought on legal grounds. It has been argued by the learned representative of the appellant that the rights guaranteed by Award, copy Exh. P-4, were infringed inasmuch as copy of TT-40 and copies of statements of the passengers alleged to have been recorded by the checker were not delivered at the time of asking the appellant to record reply on the Form TT-40. Exh. P-4 shows that demand No, 3 was to this effect and it was accepted. Exh. P-4 pertains to Ghulam Muhammadabad depot and the present case relates to the same depot. It has not been shown by the respondent that the award had been before the incident discontinued. The respondent was, therefore, bound to supply the copy of TT-40 and copies of the statements of the passengers along-with the TT-40. Since this was not done, the order of dismissal is not sustainable. The learned lower Court did not advert to this aspect of the case and thus fell in error in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. Passengers' statements Exhs. R-3 and R-4 do not bear the signatures of the appellant, nor there is any note to the effect that he was asked to put his signatures and he refused. The genuineness of these statements is, therefore, under clouds. No reliance can be placed on these statements.

3. As a result, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, direct the re-instatement of the appellant. As the disposal of the grievance petition and of the appeal was delayed due to heavy file which was not the fault of the parties. I allow only 50% back benefits to the appellant.{{BLUR PAGE}} ',Be , Tsar:est dtV I no ,S8e! 10 A. E. . -Sian' 9! 4-1!""nc=uittz 101 Iskaitnai0 --- -liqque gnibivol 1-- eionstiami ,11.311*.A;AiT !Bus lo 7-i.-

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch