Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑435 of 1980, decided on 27th November, 1982.

West Pakistan

---S. O. 15 (4)‑Domestic enquiry‑Whether to be held‑To be decided on receipt of reply to charge‑sheet‑Enquiry Officer appointed before service of charge‑sheet‑Irregularity vitiating whole proceedings- Consequential dismissal order, held, not sustainable.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Muhammad Saleem Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 31st October, 1982.

In this appeal the decision dated 9‑4‑1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grie vance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

‑ 2. . .The facts of the case are that the appellant who was an Assistant Works Manager went on medical leave from 10‑5‑78. He was due on 25‑5‑78 but did not join On 30‑5‑1978 his application for extension of leave unaccompanied by any medical certificate, was received. The period of further leave was not mentioned in the petition. On 6‑6‑78 a letter D‑5 was sent to the appellant on his home address requiring him to submit medical certificate failing which he would be considered absent from duty and severe action would be taken against him. This letter was sent by the District Manager, Body Building Workshop, Thereafter the General Manager sent a letter copy of which is P‑11 on 15‑6‑78 to the ‑appellant asking the appellant with reference to his application of extension of leave, to appear before the Medical Officer, P. R. T. B. H. Q. for his medical examination within 3 days. He was further informed that if he was not in a position to appear personally before the Medical Officer he should inform the Works Manager Incharge Body Building Workshop on telephone so that arrangements for his medical examination at his residence could be made. He was informed that if he failed to comply with the order issued to him it would tantamount to his wilful absence for which he would be liable to disciplinary action. In spite‑ of it no medical certificate was sent by the appellant. Neither he got himself medically examined from Medical Officer, P. R. T. B. nor sent any information to the effect that he was not in a position to move so that arrangements for his medical examination at lies residence could be made op the respondent's end. The letter sent on 6‑6‑78 copy of which is D‑5 came back undelivered with the report " Not traceable : had gone out". Thereafter absentee notice was got published in the newspaper copy of which is D‑15. He was asked by this absentee notice to appear before the Chief Technical Officer within 10 days who had been appointed as Enquiry Officer The appellant did not appear and his services were terminated vide order dated 24‑2‑79 copy of which is D‑16.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had given his hospital address in his application for extension of leave, therefore, correspondence should have been made with him on the said address and not on his home address. I do not find any force in this argument. Hospital address was not permanent and ordinary address inas much as it was not known for how long the appellant was to remain admitted hospital. Correspondence .on the home address was therefore rightly However, there are technical defects for which the order of termina tion is not sustainable. There is no regular charge‑sheet and if D‑15 is to be treated as charge‑sheet as it states to some extent fulfils the requirements, it vitiates the whole inquiry proceedings and the dismissal order since inquiry officer was appointed before issuing the said charge‑sheet. The requirements of Standing Order 15, clause (4) are that information of the commission of the misconduct is to be given to the workman concerned to show cause and after considering the reply the employer has to decide whether the reply is satisfactory or enquiry be held. In the present case the reply of the appellant was not awaited and before issuing absence notice it was decided to hold enquiry. This absentee notice was unjustifiably got published in the newspaper. It should have been sent on the home address. In the above‑mentioned circumstances the order of dismissal is not sustain able.

I therefore accept the appeal and setting side the order of dismissal and the order of the learned lower court direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. As appeal is being decided with considerable delay due to the heavy file the appellant is allowed 50% back benefits only.

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.