Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5762 of 1981, heard on 29th May, 1982.

(a)

West Pakistan

‑‑‑S. 15 (4) [as amended by Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance (XXVI of 1975)‑Amendment prospective and not retrospective‑ Service of charge‑sheet within one month‑Limitation‑Not applicable to proceedings validly initiated prior to amendment.

Mushtaq Ahmad v. District Manager. Government Transport Service etc. 1982 SCMR 965 rel.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Grievance petition against dismissal on account of misconduct‑Labour Court rejecting petition on ground that domes tic enquiry was not defective‑Contention in appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal that Labour Court failed to properly appreciate and evaluate evidence on record and wrongly held that there was on defect in domestic enquiry‑Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal without giving any specific finding on such issue‑Order of Appellate Tribunal challenged in writ petition before High Court on plea that non‑giving of specific finding by Appellate Tribunal resulted in grave miscarriage of justice‑Plea, in circumstances, accepted by High Court and setting aside order of Labour Appellate Tribunal case remanded for disposal afresh‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (P O. I of 1981), Art. 9.

Saleem Baig for Petitioner.

Asmat Kamal for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th May, 1982.

This judgment shall disposte of Writ Petition No. 5762181 and No. 5872/81 involving identical questions of law And facts arising out of the judgment dated r4‑11‑1981 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are that Muhammad Saleem (hereinafter called the employee) was dismissed from service on ground of embezzlement and misappropriation by the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the em ployer).. The employee filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Indus trial Relations Ordinance, '.969, for the redress of his grievance. The Punjab Labour Court No. II, Lahore, by order dated 31‑3‑1981 accepted the application of tin employee on the ground that the charge‑sheet served by the employer on the employee was time‑barred, being violative of Standing Order 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial-Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Since order of dismissal was set aside purely on technical ground and no fault was found either with the report or with the findings of the Inquiry Officer whereby the employee was found guilty of the charge of misconduct, the Labour Court declined back benefits to the employee. The employer and the employee filed separate appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. Both the appeals were dismissed by a consolidated order dated 24‑I 1‑1981. The learned Tribunal held that since the charge‑sheet was not served on the employee within thirty days of the alleged misconduct or from the date of knowledge, the same was time‑barred in view of the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969.

3. Learned counsel for the employer contends that at the time when the show‑cause notice was issued to the employee, no limitation for issuance of charge‑sheet as contemplated by Standing Order 15 (4) was ,provided and since the insertion of the aforesaid provision was not retrospective in character, the Labour Court has erred in law in setting aside the order of dismissal. It is further contended that the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the mere applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance to the establishment of the employer would not ipso facto attract the provi sions of section 15 (4) of the Ordinance, in relation of the alleged miscon duct which admittedly took place on various dates prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance.

4. A bare perusal of the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, (No. XXVI of 1975) followed by Act of 1976, would show that the amend ment was not retrospective in operation. 1n the instant case, the misconduct took place on the date when the amendment was not in, force and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the employer with regard to the alleged misconduct would no‑L be barred by limitation provided the proceedings for the alleged misconduct have been validly initiated by the employer and against the employee prior to the enforcement of the amendment. Reference may be made to Mushtaq Ahmed v District Manager Government Transport Service etc. (PLD 1977SC 197), where it was held that the provisions of section 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, were not retrospective in operation and would not affect the case relating to the period before the amendment was brought into force. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Appellate Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for‑the employee contends that a specific ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal that the Labour Court failed to property appreciate and evaluate Vie evidence on record and wrongly held that there was no defect in the inquiry proceedings. It is submitted that no specifid finding on this aspect of the matter had been given by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, on the appeal filed by the employee which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. There appears to be force in this contention.

6. 1n view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to deal with other respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties since I am inclined to remand the case to the learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for disposal afresh of the appeals filed by the employer and the employee in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The result is that the impugned order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 24‑11‑81 is set aside and both the writ petitions are accepted to the extent indicated above. The parties shall however, bear their own costs. The parties are also directed to appear before respondent No. I on 20‑6‑1982 for further proceedings.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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