Find a Lawyer

Appeal/Petition No. 489 of 1982, decided on 25th August, 1982.

West Pakistan

‑‑ S. O. 15 (2) and (4)‑Domestic enquiry‑Essential only in case of penalty of dismissal‑Reversion order impugned on plea that (1) prosecution witness not put to cross‑examination by accused and (2) period for which reversion to remain effective not mentioned‑Con tentions rejected‑Held : Reversion order could be passed even without holding enquiry and charge‑sheet and period of reversion is not essentially to be fixed.

Ch. Nazir Hussian for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th August, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 12th July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a supervisor appointed on 7th December, 1973. On 23rd December, 1974 he was reduced to the post of Storman on the allegation that he had over charged a customer. It has been argued by the learned counsel of the appellant that the person overcharged was not examined and he had only sent a statement in writing. This is true that the said person was not examined in the enquiry affording opportunity to the appellant to cross‑examine him but the procedure given in clause (iv) of Standing Orders 15 applies only in cases where order of dismissal has been passed. Paragraph (iv) reads as under‑.‑

" No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date on which misconduct or the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer arid is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. Approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and the employer shall institute independent enquiries before dealing with the charges against a workman."

In the present case the appellant was only reduced in rank and was not dismissed, therefore, charge‑sheet and m4king enquiries was not necessary. So if there is any defect in the enquiry the same is immaterial. Learned counsel has further argued that no period has been fixed in which the e appellant has to remain as Storeman. This is not necessary, because Standing Order 15 clause II sub‑clause (iii) (i) does not suggest that for a particular period the employee concerned can be reduced in rank. According to his seniority the appellant may be promoted if found fit for promotion by the employer but fixation of period is not necessary. Learned counsel has also said that no witness was examined in the enquiry and before the learned Labour Court Enquiry Officer was not brought. Since making of enquiry' was not necessary it makes no difference if no witness was examined in the enquiry. Likewise examination of the Enquiry Officer before the lower Court was also not necessary. .

3. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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