Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑232 of 1976, heard on 19th November 1976.

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S O. 15(1) (ii) (2) (iv) & (3) (i; ‑ Misconduct ‑ Worker charged for habitual negligence in supervising work of persons required to be supervised Misconduct, held, falls under S. O. 15(3) (i) and could be dismissed from service under S. O. 15(2) (iv)‑Misconduct, held. not covered under S. O. 15(1) (fl) so as to entail lesser punishment.

S. P. Lodhi for Appellant.

Masood Mirza for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th November 1976.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969.

2. The appellant was in the service of the respondent. He was served with the charge‑sheet dated 4th July. 1975. He submitted his reply on 5^th July, 1975. Since the reply was not found satisfactory an inquiry wee held. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence. He was found guilty of the charge and a show‑cause notice dated 12th August, 1975 was served. He submitted the reply dated 19th August, 1975. Thereafter he was dismissed from service on 28th August, 1975. The appellant after serving the grievance notice made an application to the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I. R. O, 1969. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant was found guilty of the charge after due inquiry.

3. The learned Presiding Officer on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish victimization and there was nothing on record to show that the inquiry suffered from any infirmity. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

4. On perusal of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The only plea which has been taken before me on behalf of the appellant is that the charge levelled against the appellant did not constitute misconduct justifying dismissal. In order to appreciate this contention I would like to reproduce the charge‑sheet which is in Urdu and it reads as under:‑

5. On reading the charge‑sheet there can be absolutely no manner o doubt that the charge which had been levelled against the appellant is that he was habitually guilty of negligence in supervising the work of the persons whose work he was required to supervise and therefore, the misconduct falls under Standing Order 15 (3) (r) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, for which one of the punishments is dismissal in view of Standing Order 15 (2) (fv) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the action taken by the Management. The contention of the learned Representative for the appellant that the misconduct fell under Standing Order 15 (1) (ii) has no force.

6. In result the appeal is 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.