Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. S G.‑550 of 1981, decided on 16th December, 1981.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑--------

‑‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑Charge‑sheet‑To be served within one month of alleged misconduct or knowledge of alleged misconduct‑Pro vision mandatory‑Action on basis of belated charge‑sheet‑Invalid.

Naseer Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.

Syed Fazal Hussain Shah for Respondent.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 2nd August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisal abad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment was dismissed.

2. The appellant was charge‑sheeted on account of habitual ab sence from 1st January, 1979 to 30th November, 1979. He remained absent at 50 occasions and the total period of absence comes to 98 days. The General Manager had called for a report of persons who had re mained absent for 50 times from 1st January, 1979 to 31st December, 1979. The report was submitted and all the persons who had remained absent for 50 times or more during that period were proceeded against. The charge‑sheet is dated 16th January, 1980 and thus is time-barred. Learn ed counsel for the respondent has argued that from the date of know ledge of the misconduct, the charge‑sheet is within time. Line of his argument is that the period started running from the date on which the report was submitted to the General Manager, who is the employer. I do not find much force in this argument. Record was with the Management and if earlier no action was taken, the appellant was not responsi ble for it. If the Management had waited for another absence of the appellant and if he had again remained absent, then from the said date within one month he could be charge‑sheeted for habitual absence. His last absence being on 13th November. 1979, charge‑sheet from that date's is obviously time‑barred. The provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are mandatory and in cases where the letter of charges is not given within one month of the misconduct or the knowledge of the misconduct, on such a charge‑shed no action can taken,

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to show that no notice of enquiry was sent of the appellant and that false report from the postman and from Akbar, an employee of the respondent, were obtain ed, but I do not find any force in this argument. The first letter of enquiry was taken to the appellant by the postman, but the former re fused to receive the same. Second letter was sent on the date of enquiry through Akbar, but that too was not received by the appellant. Except the point that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred, there is no other defect in the enquiry.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision and the dismissal order, direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. However, as only on technical ground the appellant has been re‑instated, he is not entitled to back benefits.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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