Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-80 of 1976, heard on 11th October 1976.

----S. 25-A-Dismissal-Charge-sheet, respondent's explanation enquiry notice, statement of witness on Management's behalf, statement of respondent, second show-cause notice with opportunity of personal hearing and final order of dismissal all existing on record---Lower Tribunal, held, could not in face of such evidence entertain view of proper inquiry not having been held and sufficient opportunity not given for defence---Respondent during inquiry admitting his guilt and refusing to lead evidence in defence--Lower Tribunal's order, held, could be supported in circumstances and set aside.

Sirajul Haq Qureshi for Appellant.

Sh. Shaha5uddin for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th October 1976.

This appeal has been filed under section 37 (3) of I. R. O. against the re-instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25-A, I.R.O.

2. The respondent was a driver in the employment of the Sind Road Transport Corporation. He committed some act of misconduct and was, therefore, charge-sheeted. He submitted an explanation which was found un satisfactory and, therefore, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer examined one witness, Syed Zaman in support of the allegations. The statement of the respondent was also recorded in which he admitted having committed the misconduct. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge and a second show-cause notice was issued. He was thereafter personally heard. Since the Management was not satisfied the dismissal was ordered.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal the respondent sent a grievance notice under section 25-A, I. R. O. complaining against the illegal dismissal and asking for the dues without making any request for re-instatement. Subsequently, he made an application under section 25-A, I. R. O. to the Labour Court.

4. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent was found guilty of misconduct after proper enquiry and, therefore, no exception could be taken to this dismissal. It was alb pleaded that in the grievance notice the respondent did not demand for re-instatement.

5. The learned Presiding Officer on the assessment of the evidence entertained the view that no proper enquiry was held and sufficient opportunity was not allowed to the respondent to defend himself. Ha was of the view that the absence of demand for re-instatement in the grievance notice was immaterial. He, therefore, accepted the application and ordered re instatement with the necessary benefits. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am of the view that the learned Presiding Officer clearly erred in reaching the conclusion that proper enquiry was not held and sufficient opportunity was not allowed to the respondent to defend himself as is evident from the documents produced in the lower Court. The documents consist of charge sheet. Explanation of tire respondent, enquiry notice, statement of one witness on behalf of the Management, statement of the respondent, second show-cause notice with opportunity of personal hearing and the final order of dismissal. It is not understood how in view of these documents the learned Presiding Officer entertained the view that proper enquiry was not held and, sufficient opportunity was rot allowed to the respondent to defend himself. The respondent in his statement which was recorded in the enquiry, clearly admitted his guilt and. further stated that he did not wish to, examine any witness to defence. The averments made in his statement were clearly ignored by the learned presiding Officer. It is impossible to support the order on the grounds stated by the learned Presiding Officer.

7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The application made:, under section 25-A, I. R. O. stands dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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