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. KAR‑39 of 1976, heard on 31st January 1977.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑ S. 15(4), proviso‑Domestic enquiry‑General Secretary of Union not an employee of establishment‑Cannot be allowed to assist accused workman in his domestic enquiry:
‑‑ S. 38 read with S. 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 15(4)‑Inquiry Officer, in domestic enquiry, rejecting application of accused workman for summoning more witnesses‑Labour Court cannot interfere with such exercise of discretion by Inquiry Officer-- No such grievance agitated in grievance notice‑‑Appeal dismissed.
S. Safdar Hussain for Appellant.
Malik Sher Muhammad for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 31st January 1977.
This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25‑A, I. R. O.
2. The appellant was in the service of the respondent. On account of some misconduct, he was charge‑sheeted. He submitted an explanation, which was found unsatisfactory. Inquiry Offcer was appointed and inquiry was held. He was found guilty and,. therefore, dismissed from service, HC served a grievance notice and then approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and various pleas were taken.
4. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court rejected the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. It is an admitted position that the respondent was a mill and according to second proviso to section 4, Standing Order No. 15 is not applicable to an industrial establishment wherein 49 persons are employed on any day during the preceding 12 months, unless a notification to that effect was issued by the Government, extending the provisions to that industry. Admittedly, no such notification has been issued. So it was necessary that there should have more than 49 persons employed in the respondent mill. The appellant miserably failed to establish that more than 49 persons were working. He made a vague statement to the effect that 40 or 50 persons were working in the mill. No reliance can be placed upon such a vague statement. Conse quently, the Standing Order No. 15 which required the holding of inquiry was inapplicable. So even if there was any defect, in the inquiry which was held, it can be of no avail to the appellant.
6. Although, in view of the fact that Standing Order No. 15 is not applicable, I would like to deal with the contentions which have been raised on behalf of the appellant. It was urged that the General Secretary was no allowed to assist the appellant when the inquiry was held ; although, a request to that effect was made. Admittedly, the General Secretary was an outsider and not a member of the establishment and, therefore, he could not be permitted in view of the proviso to Standing Order No. 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
7. It was next urged that the appellant had cited two witnesses, Ashfaq and Nawab, and out of them Nawab was examined while Ashfaq did not attend as he was said to have fallen ill, and the Inquiry Officer did not post pone the inquiry for his evidence. The record does not show that any request was made to postpone the inquiry for the evidence of that witness, but instead an application was made for summoning three other persons as witnesses, and this application was rejected on the ground that it was belated. No fault can be found with the order passed by the Inquiry Officer. It was discretionary with him to allow the application or not and the Labour Court cannot interfere with the discretion which has been exercised. In this connec tion it may be noted that no such grievance was agitated in the grievance notice. This ground was also pleaded before the Labour Court and was rejected. It was further pointed out by the learned Presiding Officer that the appellant had not made any allegation of bias or partiality against the Inquiry Officer either in the grievance petition or in the application made under section 25‑AI. R. O.
8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer