Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. J G‑771 of 1982, decided on 15th January, 1983.

‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Evidence‑Production of documents‑Accused charged of not delivering some of letters received by him to be delivered at some other end‑Original receipt not produced Duplicate thereof produced‑Signature thereon not denied and receipt of some other letters included in said receipt also admitted No objection raised for production of original receipt‑Admissibi lity of such duplicate, in circumstances, held, could not be objected on plea of absence proof of signatures‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 67.

1980 P L C 663 distinguished.

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

‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (i)‑Misconduct‑Word "or" appearing between words "habitual negligence" and "neglect of work"‑Disjunctive Word "habitual" not to be read with words "neglect of work" Single act of "neglect of work" constitutes misconduct‑When workman found to have worked negligently it would not amount to misconduct unless service of instances produced to show that habit of working negligently has developed‑Workman delivered letters for delivery at given address‑Neither delivered nor returning same back‑Held: Rightly dismissed for misconduct of neglect of work.

Nazir Ahmad Naz Representative for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 9th January, 1983.

In this appeal the decision dated 13th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had failed to deliver three letters sent to the District Manager, Jhang containing form TT‑40 for taking action against certain employees of the respondent. The appellant took up the plea that no such letters were delivered to him. In the way‑bills which were produced before the learned lower Court the disputed letters were mentioned along with some other documents. The other documents were delivered by the appellant but the allegation was that three letters were not delivered by him. The representative of the appellant has argued that since the original of Exb. R‑2 which was bearing the signatures of the appellant was not produced and the appellant was not confronted with it on the basis of copy Exh. R‑2 on order could be passed. The delivery of the way‑bill is not denied. It is also admitted that the other documents mentioned in the way‑bills were received by the appellant but denial is only about the three disputed letters. The signa tures of the appellant on Exh. R‑2 therefore, are not denied. If the appel lant had denied the receipt of the other documents also, of course there could have been some force in the arguments of the representative that the appellant should have been confronted with his signatures appearing on that document. Moreover, at the time copy of the way‑bill was admit ted in evidence no objection was raised that the original should be pro duced. If at the time Exh. R‑2 was received in evidence, objection had been raised about its admissibility there would have been opportunity for the respondent to produce the original way‑bill. The representative has cited 1980 P L C 663 on the point but the same is not helpful. No doubt it has been observed that documents not copies of judicial orders cannot be brought on the record without proving the signatures of the persons alleged to have signed them but in the present case the delivery of the way bill and the signatures of the appellant on it are admitted but only the delivery of the three documents was denied.

3. It has also been argued that the allegation made against the appellant did not amount to misconduct. I cannot agree with the repre sentative on this point also. The officer of the appellant delivered three letters to him along with other documents but he failed to deliver the same nor returned it to the said officer and thus he committed the offence of neglect of work. The word 'or' appearing between the words habitual negligence' and neglect of work' is disjunctive, therefore, the word habitual' will not be read with the words 'neglect of work'. The single act of neglect of work' therefore, would constitute misconduct. But where one has been found to have worked negligently, it would not amount to misconduct unless series of instances have been produced to show that habit of working negligently has developed in him.

4. The offence of neglect of work was duly proved against the appel lant and he was rightly dismissed and the learned lower Court rightly dismis sed his grievance petition. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismis sed 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.