Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑608 of 1982, decided on 16th November, 1983.

‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Competence of Officer to charge‑sheet and for appointment of Enquiry Officer‑Question of fact‑Cannot be pressed for first time in arguments before Labour Court‑Such competence challenged neither in grievance notice nor in grievance petition Labour Court observing that it was not proved that officers concerned had been delegated such powers and accepting grievance petition Points, held, though very material but should have been probed into after opportunity of evidence to management‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision afresh after opportunity of evidence to parties‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

K. M. Pasha for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

The decision, dated 20th October, 1932 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged in the titled appeal.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he had on 1st October, 1980 gone to the office of Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Stock and Store Officer and abused, threatened him and interferred in the discharge of his duties. The respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service for the reason that Yahya Kamal, Assistant Manager, Administration, who charge‑sheeted the respondent and Amin‑ud- Din, Deputy Manager, who appointed the Enquiry Officer, were not competent to do so. The learned lower Court has also observed that it was not proved that Mr. Yahya Kamal and Mr. Amin‑ud‑Din were the delegatees of the Managing Director. A perusal of grievance notice and grievance petition reveals that authority of Mr. Yahya Kamal and Mr. Amin‑ud‑Din were not challenged. If it had been done, the appellant being aware of it may have proved that the two officers being the delegatees or otherwise, were competent to perform the acts done by them. Such objections that were questions of fact could not be pressed for the first time in arguments before the learned lower Court. The points raised on behalf of the respondent, no doubt, are very material and should be proved into after giving opportunity to the appellants to meet them by producing evidence, if any.

3. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the points on which the learned lower Court has based its judgment, the case be decided afresh.

A. E.

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.