Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 59 of 1975, decided on 1st July 1975.
S. 25-A-Scope-Powers of Labour Court-Dismissal due to mis conduct-Impartial enquiry held with full defence opportunity-Labour Court, in circumstances, held, cannot sit in appeal over findings of enquiry.
Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Abdul Waheed respondent was employed as Chargeman in Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd., Lahore the appellant. The services of the respondent were terminated on the charges of misconduct on 28th January 1974. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore seeking his re-instatement and challenging the validity of the order of his dismissal from service. He contended in his application that the order of his dismissal was based on mala fides as he was victimized for his Trade Union activities. He further contended that the charges levelled against him were concocted ones and the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner.
2. The appellant resisted the respondent's application before the learned Court below and pleaded inter alla that the respondent was guilty of misconduct. His guilt was duly enquired into through an independent enquiry. His dismissal was ordered in due course after observing all the formalities and that there was no m2la fide on the part of the employer.
3. Abdul Waheed respondent and Sh. Mohammad Akhtar appeared on behalf of the respondent before the learned lower Court while Mr. Muhajid Hussain Syed Personnel Officer of PECO who acted as Enquiry Officer against the respondent came into the witness-box on behalf of the appellant.
4. After considering the parties evidence and hearing them the learned Court below found that the alleged misconduct against the appellant was not proved and that the petitioner had no business to take part in the strike of supervisory staff. In view of these findings the learned lower Court accepted the application filed by the respondent and ordered his re-instatement with full back benefits by its order dated 12th February 1975 which has been impugned through the present appal.
5. I have carefully gone through the, records of the case and the parties have been heard at a considerable length. The respondent in his cross- examination has clearly admitted that he was served with a charge-sheet in this case. After the submission of his reply to the charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The respondent cross-examined the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer and also produced witnesses in his defence. He further admitted that alongwith the show-cause notice he received the copy of Enquiry Officer's report and the copies of the statements of witnesses who were examined by the Enquiry Officer. He filed his reply to the show cause notice. These clear admissions on the part of the respondent make it amply clear that before dismissing the respondent on the charges of misconduct the appellant duly complied with the provisions of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The dismissal of the respondent in the circumstances has been ordered in accordance with law. Junior Labour Court is ordinarily not to sit as Court of appeal viz-a-viz the findings of Enquiry Officer. It is to see if the termi nation has been ordered in accordance with law. Even on merits the only defence of the respondent before the Enquiry Officer was that on the day of the commission of alleged misconduct he was confined to the bed in his, house. To prove so, the respondent has examined Sh. Mohammad Akhtar before the learned lower Court. This witness stated that be visited the petitioner's house after 7-30 p. m. and found him lying in the bed. In the cross-examination he conceded that he did not know as to how long the petitioner remained sick as the witness was out of city.
The lower Court itself has observed that Mr. Mohammad Akhtar the witness produced by the petitioner was not very helpful. The report of the Enquiry Officer (Exh. R I.) shows that this plea of sickness of the respondent was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and he recorded a clear finding in this behalf that this plea was not proved.
6. In view of the evidence on record I do not find that findings of the Enquiry Officer are in any manner perverse or wrongful on the face of the record.
7. In the light of what has been said above I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the res pondent before the learned lower Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer