Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SKR-163 of 1970, heard on 29th July 1970.

Standing Order 15 and West Pakistan Road Transport Workers Rules, 1962, r. 6-Misconduct- Domestic enquiry-Worker denying allegations made against him in charge-sheet asking case to be filed and refusing to put any questions-Enquiry officer, nevertheless bound to hold enquiry-Mere charge-sheet-No proof of guilt or misconduct-Enquiry Officer, without holding enquiry recommending dismissal on basis of charge -sheet-Order of dismissal, in circumstances, held, liable to be set aside and Management advised to hold proper enquiry after rein-stating dismissed worker.

Ammanullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Arz Mohammad Abro for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29th July 1970.

This is an appeal against an award dated the 18th April 1970, whereby the learned Chairman of the Labour Court held that there was no contravention of section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal briefly' put are these.

2. The appellant who was a Conductor in G. T. S., Sukkur was charge-sheeted for misconduct. It was alleged that whet the bus of the appellant was checked on 10th of January 196E it was found that 26 - persons were travelling without ticket; out of whom according to T. T. 40 the Conductor had realistic fare from 18 passengers while according to the charge-sheet h had realised fare from 8 out of 26 passengers. Mr. Asghar Khan, Assistant Traffic Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on the 23^rd April 1961 and stated that his reply is the same as submitted by him in reply to the charge-sheet. He further stated that he does not want to put any question and that his case may be filed. Or 30th April 1968, the Enquiry Officer wrote to the District Manager that there were three more cases against the appellant and that they were of serious nature. He recommended on than ground that the appellant be dismissed from service.

3. The learned Chairman of the Labour Court came to the conclusion, in the circumstances mentioned above, that no useful purpose could have been served by holding a formal enquiry The short question is as to whether an enquiry should have been held in view of the fact that the appellant had denied the allega tions made against him. Standing Order 15 of 1968 as- well as Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers Rules, 1962 contemplate that where the allegations made against a worker are denied by him enquiry should be held. The mere fact that the appellant was charge-sheeted for serious misconduct is no proof that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct alleged to A have been committed by him, on 10th of January 1968. It was open to the Enquiry Officer to accept the evidence of any person that may have been produced by the Department to prove the misconduct alleged by the appellant. Admittedly no enquiry was held. I would hold that one of the terms and conditions of service of a workman is that an enquiry should be held where he denied the charge, before he is dismissed.

4. In these circumstances I would set aside the order of the learned Labour Court dated 18th April 1970 and order that the appellant be re-instated. A fresh enquiry should be held from the stage when the appellant had submitted his reply dated the 23rd of April 1968. As regards the back benefits that the appellant may be entitled it would depend on the enquiry. If he is re-instated he will be entitled to all the back benefits on the other hand if the Enquiry Officer, after holding an enquiry in accordance with law held that he was guilty he will not be entitled to any back benefits. The appellant would be entitled to Rs. 100 as cost. The cost will be paid to the appellant or to his Representative within three weeks.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.