Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. IG‑489 of 1979/Pb., decided on 26th June, 1982.

‑‑ S. O. 15‑Urdu translation of enquiry report‑Supply of‑In spite of repeated request, appellant not given Urdu translation enquiry report and copy of enquiry proceedings‑During enquiry appellant having access to enquiry proceedings and delivered copy of enquiry report but not its Urdu translation‑Held, management not ‑bound to supply Urdu translation of enquiry report.

1975 P L C 494 distinguished.

‑‑ S. O. 15‑Enquiry‑Place of‑Employer‑Competency (to dismiss) of‑Misconduct committed at F and charge‑sheet given to employee by employer at same place‑Enquiry held at S‑District Manager S (issuing dismissal order) not employer at time of mis conduct‑Held, enquiry could legally be held only at F and only employer at F competent to dismiss employee.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.

Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Respondent. .

This appeal arises from the decision dated 10th July, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. The allegation made against the appellant was that he had recovered Rs. 7.20 from nine passengers but had not issued tickets for their luggage. He was charge‑sheeted on 1st December, 1978. In answer to the second show cause notice he had made an application demanding Urdu translation of the enquiry report and the copy of the enquiry proceedings. On 12th December, 1978 he repeated his request but the same was not acceded to and on the same day the order of dismissal was passed. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1975 P L C 494 and has argued that since Urdu translation of the enquiry report and the copy of the enquiry proceedings were not delivered to the appellant, the order of dismissal stands vitiated. The authority does not support him. It has been observed that the copy of the enquiry report should be given with the second show‑cause notice, but it has not been observed that the copy of the enquiry proceedings are to be necessarily supplied to the workman concerned. The appellant during the enquiry had access to the enquiry proceedings, and thus could look into them. It was not necessary to supply him the copy of the enquiry proceedings. So far as the enquiry report is concerned, copy of it was delivered to him but his demand was that Urdu translation of the enquiry report should be supplied to him. This was not necessary. He could get the enquiry report translated from some English knowing person, but the manage ment was not bound to supply to him Urdu translation. The misconduct was committed by the appellant at Faisalabad and the charge‑sheet was also given to him by the employer of that place; but the enquiry was held at Sargodha and the dismissal order was issued, by the District Manager, Sargodha, was not his employer at the time the misconduct was committed. Either the appellant should have been transferred during the pendency of the case against him or if his transfer was necessary, the enquiry, should have been ordered by the employer at Faisalabad, enquiry could be legally held there and only the employer of Faisalabad was competent to dismiss him. The dismissal order for the above‑1 mentioned reason, therefore, is not maintainable. .

3. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the dismissal order. direct the reinstatement of the appellant. Since only on technical ground the appellant has succeeded, he is not entitled to back benefits.

K. M. A. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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