Find a Lawyer

-------Ss. 25‑A &. 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Proceedings of domestic enquiry not produced before Labour Court‑No oral evidence in support of alleged charge adduced‑‑Charges, in circumstances, held, not established and Court justified in awarding re‑instatement with back benefits.

Ehsan Elahi Sheikh for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 13th February, 1984.

This appeal challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 22nd December, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent is a helper. He was charge‑sheeted, on 25th August, 1980 on the allegation of misappropriating Rs. 4,959.85. He did not submit any reply. He was terminated without holding any enquiry. He brought a grievance petition and on the statements of the parties he was directed to be re‑instated, giving permission to the appellant to hold enquiry. On 24th March, 1982 he was given fresh charge‑sheet including in it the previous allegation of misappropriating Rs. 4,959.85. The new allegations were that he had used derogatory and threatening language against his superiors and that he was asked to improve his sale but instead of doing so, he gave comments in a rude manner.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned lower Court has issued direction to re‑instate the respondent on the ground that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred. No doubt, the learned lower Court has so remarked, but this is not the only ground on which the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated. Even on merits the finding of the learned Court below is that the charges were not established and that proper opportunity was not afforded to the respondent in the inquiry. It has not been shown if previously charge‑sheet was issued on allegation No. 1. If no charge‑sheet was served then the charge‑sheet so far as the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 4,959.85 is concerned, is time‑barred. Allegation No. 2 is not time‑barred. So far as allegation No. 3 is concerned, since no date of comments alleged to have been made by the respondent is given and the comments were not produced, it cannot be definitely said if this allegation is time barred or not.

4. So far as merits of the case are concerned, there is no evidence worth the name. inasmuch as the enquiry proceedings were not brought on the file of the learned lower Court. The letter, dated 10th March, 1982 in which the respondent is alleged to have done mud slinging upon his superiors, and comments that are alleged to have been made in a rude manner, are not on the file. Even no oral evidence in this respect was led 14 before the learned lower Court. Thus, the charges were not established and consequently the learned lower Court was justifed in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent.

5. As a result; the appeal is dismissed 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.