Find a Lawyer

Appeal No, LIJR‑701 of 1980, decided on 22nd December, 1982.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. Os. 15 (3) & 15 (4)‑"Misconduct"‑.‑Negligence‑ Only one instance and not habitual‑ Does not amount to misconduct‑Proce dure of enquiry under S. O. 15 (4) not necessary in case of allegation of negligence.

P L D 1974 S C 393 ref.

Hamid Aslam Qureshi for Appellant.

Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 4th December, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 28th August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has brought cross‑objection for claiming back benefits.

2. The respondent was a chowkidar. He was on duty on 19th & 20^th July, 1979. Theft of mild steel bars took place on the said night. The service of the respondent was terminated on the ground of negligence and inefficiency. Notice to show‑cause was given but no inquiry was held.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that negligence and inefficiency amount to misconduct so holding of inquiry was necessary.

He has cited P L D 1974 S C 393 but the said ruling is distinguished in asmuch as the allegations made .in that case amounted to misconduct, therefore it was held that following of procedure of Standing Order 15 (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance was necessary. Not simple negligence but habitual negligence is misconduct according to Standing Order 15 (3). For habitual negligence there should be series of instances of negligence whereas in the present case there was the instance of only one negligence. So holding a of inquiry was not necessary.

3. A chowkidar acting as .watchman at night has not to perform any manual duties and this not covered by the definition of workman as defined in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The duty of the respondent was to act as watchman at night. Learned counsel for the respon dent has argued that the respondent as stated by him in his statement was acting as peon also, so was a workman. No doubt‑the respondent stated so but he did not disclose what duties as a peon be used to discharge. So his bare statement is not sufficient to bring him. within the definition of workman.

4. The order of termination does not (sic) ,satisfy the provision of Standing Orders Ordinance 12 (3) and his termination was wrongly set aside by the learned Lower Court.

As a result' of the observations made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the Labour Court, restore the order of termination. The cross‑objections of the respondent are disallowed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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