Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑94 of 1983/Pb., decided on 28th February, 1983.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (b)‑Misconduct ‑ Fraud not committed during service but committed before entry into service‑Not a mis conduct‑Entry into service open for domicile of a particular district‑Workman not producing any domicile certificate at time of entry but appointed‑Subsequently on being asked producing domicile certificate indicating that he belonged to some other district‑No allegation of production of false certificate during service‑Termination of service for alleged misconduct of fraud, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside awarding re‑instatement by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

Kazi Muhammad Yasin for Appellants.

Date of hearing : 21st February, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 22nd January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he did not produce domicile certificate at the time of his appointment and afterwards when he brought one, it showed that he belonged to Dera Ghazi Khan and not Bahawalpur. It was considered that he committed misconduct. His services, therefore, were terminated.

3. No false domicile certificate is alleged to have been produced while in service, so no misconduct was committed. An act of fraud committed during service is misconduct and not an act committed before entering into service. If he had at that time produced false domicile certificate of Bahawalpur, of course it could be said that he had committed fraud. The appellant knew that no domicile certificate had been produced, but in spite of it the respondent was accepted in service. The fault was of the officer who without such a certificate appointed the respondent and not of the respondent. Since no misconduct was committed, the respondent could not be on this ground alone termina ted. He was thus rightly directed to be re‑instated in service. :"

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

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.