Find a Lawyer

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

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Grievance petition against dismissal for mis conduct ‑ Domestic enquiry defective‑Holding of re‑enquiry found necessary‑Held, setting aside of dismissal order, held, not essential while ordering holding of re‑enquiry by another Enquiry Officer.

Applicant in person.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th March, 1983.

Appeal Nos. RI‑204/81‑Pb. and LHR‑217/81‑Pb: were decided on 23‑1‑1983 by remanding the enquiry to the second Enquiry Officer. Now Muhammad Saleem has applied for the clarification of the said decision to eject whether his services stand terminated or not. He says that he can join the proceedings only if the order of dismissal is set aside. There can be no legal bar for the petitioner in joining the enquiry even though he stands dismissed. The illegalities committed by the second Enquiry Officer were that he did not call Mr. Zubair for the completion of cross‑examination and at the same time considered his uncross examined statement against the petitioner. He, therefore, has been directed to record his verdict ignoring the uncross‑examined statement of Mr. Zubair after giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce defence. If the Enquiry Officer gives his verdict against the petitioner and the employer agrees to it, the dismissal order already passed will stand good and if the Enquiry Office and the employer hold the otherwise, the employer will re‑instate the petitioner. In case the respondent is not re‑instated, obviously . he shall have the right to challenge the new verdict after service of grievance notice. If the order of dismissal had been set aside, there would have come in many complications. In order to bind the re‑instated petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer within a certain period, directing that otherwise he would stand as dismissed and order of re‑instatement vacated had to make In that situation there would have been likelihood of the arising of controversy that the petitioner had failed to appear whereas the contention of the petitioner could have been that he appeared but no enquiry was held. So it was not considered advisable‑ to uphold the order of re‑instatement. For the holding of re‑enquiry setting aside of the dismissal order is not necessary. However, I fix the date of re enquiry as 7‑5‑1983, on which the petitioner shall appear before the second Enquiry Officer at the premises where previously the enquiry was held.

Appeal dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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