Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. No. 230 of 1975, decided on 16th June 1975.

-----S. 25-A-Scope-Dismissal on account of misconduct-Appellant failing to appear before Inquiry Officer on due date-Enquiry Officer waiting for about a week and receiving no explanation from appellant regarding his inability and failure to produce defence and then giving findings of guilt against appellant-Contention that enquiry was not proper, in circumstances, rejected and no principle of natural justice, held, violated-Refusal to interfere by Junior Labour Court in application under S. 25-A, in circumstances, upheld.

Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Appellant.

Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.

This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 30-4-1975 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the I. R. O. Petition was rejected. Hence this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned order.

3. Brief facts rising to this appeal are that on 28-7-1974 appellant who is a conductor with the respondent was found to have misappropriated certain amounts of tickets. Five passengers were found without ticket but they had paid the amount and in some cases charged the passengers more amount than was given in their tickets. An enquiry was held and appellant was dismissed from service.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that the domestic enquiry was adjourned to 26-11-1974 for defence but on 25-11-1974 appellant could not appear for certain reasons and enquiry officer gave a report with the findings of guilt against the appellant. So enquiry was not held properly. At least appellant should have been asked why he did not produce his defence on 30-11-1974.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has stressed that enquiry report was made on 2-2-1974. Enquiry Officer waited for the reference till that date but appellant did not approach the enquiry officer to produce his defence or to explain his inability to produce defence on 26-11-1973. Enquiry officer after waiting for a week or so submitted the enquiry report.

6. No principle of natural justice has been violated. Enquiry was held properly. It was the bounden duty of the appellant to produce defence on a day fixed for this purpose. It was also for him to explain his inability to produce defence.

7. In that view of the matter, I don't see any reason to interfere into the judgment of the Junior Labour Court. I, therefore maintain the order (if dismissal of the appellant and rejected the appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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