Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. MN‑209 and MN‑210 of 1981, decided on 30th January, 1981.

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

‑‑‑S. O. 15 (4)‑Misconduct‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Charge‑sheet Workman allegedly misbehaved with his superior‑Exact words allegedly uttered not mentioned in charge‑sheet‑‑Charge‑sheet, in circumstances, held, vague‑‑Accused workman allegedly denying charge and stating that if at all he had said anything objectionable, he may be pardoned‑Such statement, in circumstances, held, could not be deemed as confession of charge and proper inquiry must have been held.

Sh. Afial Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent No. i.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1983.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 28th February, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif, respondents, were directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The facts and law points involved in the two appeals are the same, so they are being disposed of together through this consolidated judgment.

2. The facts are that Bashir Ahmad, respondent, applied for leave from 19th December, 1977 to 22nd May, 1978 which was allowed but he was not paid salary for the leave period. He approached the Director and this annoyed the employer. The allegation against the respondents is that they misbehaved with the appellants. They were suspended on 24th January, 1979 and were charge‑sheeted on 27th February, 1979. No enquiry was held and treating Exh. R‑I as confession the services of the respondents were terminated.

3. The charge‑sheet is vague, inasmuch as it does riot disclose what the respondents had said which amounted to misbehavior. Nothing is mentioned which they actually said. The learned counsel .has argued that the respondents may have used abusive language in their own favour and the words may be indecent that it was not thought proper to reproduce them in the charge‑sheets. I do not find any force in this argument. What the respondents are alleged to have actually said should have been mentioned in the charge‑sheets so that the respondents could have opportu nity to admit or deny. Since the very charge‑sheet was vague, tae whole superstructure raised upon it, fell to the ground. In Exb. R. I the respondents did not mention any confession. They denied to have misbehaved and said that if at all they had said anything objectionable, they be pardoned. There being no admission, holding of enquiry was necessary as required by Standing Order 12 (5) read with Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondents were, therefore, rightly directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

There is no force in the appeals, which are dismissed.

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.