Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR‑349 and KAR‑351 of 1977, heard on 17th December, 1977.

‑‑ Charge‑sheet‑‑Must contain each charge and allegation as alle gedly occurred‑‑Worker charged for disorderly behaviour and dis obedience of order‑.Charge of alleged assault found by Labour Court as merely a corollary and off shoot of first charge Not properly mentioned but stated in a letter from Management‑‑Such letter, held, cannot substitute a charge‑sheet‑West Pakistan Indus trial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15(3) (a) & (h).

----S. 25‑A(5)‑Order of Court‑Re‑instatement‑Back benefits -Dismissal set aside for defective charge‑sheet with order for fresh domestic enquiry under law‑Refusal of back benefits by Labour Court, in circumstances, held, quite just.

P L D 1977 Kar. 83 ref.

M. L. Shahant for the Worker.

Masood Mirza for the Management.

Date of hearing : 17th December 1977.

This judgment will dispose of two Cross Appeals bearing Nos. KAR 349 and KAR‑351 of 1977. In the former, the appellant is one Yar Mohammad, a Weaver at the Mill known as Mohammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd., Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi; whereas in the later, the appellant is the Mill itself. Both Appeals are directed against an order of the Vth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 13th September 1977; setting aside the dismissal of the appellant Yar Mohammad, Weaver, directing the respondents to re‑instate him in service and allowing respondents to hold fresh enquiry of misconduct against the appellant, meanwhile restraining payment of back benefits until the result of the fresh domestic enquiry.

2. Briefly the facts are that worker Yar Mohammad was employed as a Weaver at the Mill in question and was working on one of the 3 shifts that obtained in the Weaving Department of this Mill. It was the practice that upon the conclusion of a 8 hours shift, the Weaver could not be permitted to obtain his Card and retire from his duty until his Relief was there to take over from him. On the night of 17th July 1976, Yar Mohammad's shift duty of 8 hours terminated at 12 midnight; but, as his Relief had not appeared, he was asked by the Supervisor Ali Mohammad to carry on with his work until the arrival of his Relief. This he was not prepared to do and thus there arose an altercation between the two of them in the course of which Yar Mohammad abused the Supervisor Ali Mohammad and struck him with this shoe. On 20th July 1976, a charge‑sheet which appears at page 25 of the Lower Court was served upon Yar Mohammad and as his reply was found unsatisfac tory, a domestic enquiry was ordered which was held on 29th July 1976, and in which this worker participated. Another Weaver Kansala and the Supervisor Ali Mohammad were examined in this enquiry on behalf of the Mill while the worker Yar Muhammad produced no defence witness. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the worker guilty of misconduct under Standing Order 15/3 (a) (h) and on 2nd August 1976, a second show‑cause notice was served on the worker Yar Mohammad informing him of the findings of the Enquiry officer and giving him an opportunity to attend a personal hearing on 4th August 1976, which he declined to do. Hence, on 6th August 1976, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, after the usual grievance notice, he filed his application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations ordinance, 1969, in the Court below which resulted in the impugned order.

3. I have heard Mr. Masood Mirza on behalf of the Mills and Mr. M. L. Shahani on behalf of the worker in both these Appeals.

4. After having perused the Appeal memos. in both these Appeals, the R & P of the lower Court, and after having heard the arguments of the two counsel, I reached the conclusion that no fault can be found with the impugned order of the learned lower Court, and that, therefore, both these Appeals must be dismissed and I, then and there, announced a short order in Court to this effect. This Judgment contains the reasons for that short order.

5. It was contended by Mr. Masood Mirza in Appeal No. 351/77 that the lower Court has erred in holding that the findings of the Enquiry officer are at variance with the charge‑sheet. The learned Advocate invited my attention to the statement given by the worker Yar Mohammad before the Enquiry Officer wherein he admitted that he abused and struck the Supervisor Ali Mohammad with his shoe and would have carried on doing so had he not been stopped by another worker. It seems to me that it would be erroneous to rely upon this admission for the purpose of answering or meeting the conclusion of the learned lower Court that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are at variance with the charge‑sheet. I have carefully studied this charge‑sheet and I find that it is really a letter from the Personal Officer of the Mill to the worker Yar Mohammad instead of being a regular charge‑sheet containing each count in the charge and each allegation seriatim as it occurred in chronological sequence. The learned lower Court had stated that '6l have again perused the charge‑sheet and find that the charge of assault is a corollary and off shoot of the first charge and, therefore, if the charge‑sheet is framed accordingly, it would be known whether the applicant/appellant had assaulted Ali Muhammad voluntarily or under the compelled circumstances". I find myself in agreement on this point with the learned lower Court, and hence, I further agree with the order of the lower Court that the dismissal of the worker Yar Muhammad should be set aside and a fresh enquiry be held against him upon a properly and soundly framed charge‑sheet.

6. In Appeal No. 349/77, Mr. M. L. Shahani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the worker has questioned the validity of the direction contained in the impugned order of the lower Court with holding the payment of back benefits to the worker Yar Muhammad and stating that this will depend upon the result of the fresh domestic enquiry. Mr. Shahani submitted that the setting aside of the original charge‑sheet against the delinquent worker amounts to his re‑instatement and, therefore, the payment of his back benefits must necessarily follow as the night follows, the day. He also invited my attention to section 25‑A (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, enjoining upon the Labour Court to go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. He also relied upon a judgment of the Karachi High Court reported in P L D 1977 Kar. 83. However, I found myself unable to accept these conten tions of Mr. Shahani. The mere setting aside of the charge‑sheet cannot amount to absolving the delinquent worker of the alleged acts committed by him on the night of 17th July 1976 when he was asked by his Supervisor to continue work until relieved by his opposite number in the succeeding shift. Besides, a fresh domestic enquiry having been ordered, it would be prejudging t issue to allow the payment of back benefits to the delinquent worker until the result of this fresh enquiry is known. For these reasons, then, I reached the conclusion that this appeal on behalf of the worker Yar Muhammad must also stand dismissed; and this judg ment Contains the reasons for the rejection by me of these two appeals.

Appeals 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.