Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SG‑752 of 1981/Pb., decided on 12th February, 1983.

Industrial dispute----

--‑‑Termination of service‑Purportedly made on allegation of viola tion of instructions‑Violation of instructions, held, does not amount to misconduct ‑‑ Service of charge‑sheet and holding inquiry not essential‑Order passed without one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof‑Violation of S. O. 12 (1)‑Re‑instatement with out back benefit awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12(1), (4) & 15 (3) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Ehsan Ali.Sheikh for Appellant.

Fiaz Muhammad Bhatti for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 1st February, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 25th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had against the instructions sold grain pulse in excess of five kilos per head. The circular containing the instructions is Exh. R‑1. The respondent was neither charge‑sheeted, nor any enquiry was held against him.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the grie vance notice and the grievance petition were time‑barred, inasmuch as the order of termination Exh. P‑2 was passed on 21st January, 1981, but the grievance notice was given on 5th September, 1981, and the grievance petition was lodged on 28th September, 1981. The respondent had made application to the Divisional Manager on 20th March, 1981. He was asked vide letter dated 26th March, 1981 Exh. P‑5 to appeal to the Mana ging Director. By another letter dated 1st April, 1981 Exh. P‑6 same kind of advice was given to him, whereupon he lodged appeal to the Managing Director on 1st April, 1981, copy of which is Exh. P‑7. He was not sent any reply. No doubt the appeal was time‑barred, but as it .was not dismissed as such and rather no reply was sent to him, he, after waiting, rightly served grievance notice on 5th September, 1981 which was followed by the grievance petition on 28th September, 1981. It was, in these circumstances, rightly termed as within time.

4. The allegation did not amount to misconduct as it was the viola tion of instructions and not lawful order of superiors. Violation of instruc tions is minor offence, so charge‑sheeting and holding of enquiry were not necessary. However, the order of termination was in violation of Standing Order 12 (1) since neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu of notice was given. Thus, the learned lower Court rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent in service without back benefits.

5. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

A.E. 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.