Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SG‑686 of 1982, decided on 6th July, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Grievance petition against dismissal‑Service of charge‑sheet, enquiry notice and impugned order denied by accused‑workman‑Service not proved by adducing any evidence‑Labour Court in holding docu ments produced without supporting evidence as proved, in circumstances, held, fell in error‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petitidn, in circumstances, set aside and re‑instatement with 50% back benefits awarded by Appellate Tribunal.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Not necessarily to start from date of impugned order but from date of service thereof to workman or from date same came to his knowledge.

Naseer Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.

Khsan Ali Sheikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd July, 1983.

The decision, dated 25th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed as time‑barred as well as on merits.

2. The allegation against the appellant was of misappropriation of Rs. 1,864 and 50 bags of flour and violation of rules and instructions. The appellant denied the service of charge‑sheet, enquiry notice, dismissal order, dated 21st July, 1979. It was, therefore, necessary to prove the service of the above documents upon the appellant but no evidence was produced. Only the documents were produced without examining the enquiry officer or any other witness. The charge‑sheet Exh. R‑5 does not purport to bear the signatures of the appellant in token of its receipt. No postal receipt was produced to show that the charge‑sheet was sent by registered post. Exh. R‑7 is the enquiry notice but its service was not proved. No signatures of the appellant were proved. Termination order Exh. R‑1 was not proved to be bearing the signatures of the appellant. l4io postal receipt was produced. Enquiry Officer was not examined to prove that the appellant had participated in the enquiry and signed the proceedings, The service of charge‑sheet, enquiry notice and termination order was suggested to the appellant in his cross‑examination but he categorically denied every thing. He disowned his signatures on the enquiry proceedings. In spite of it no evidence was produced to prove the above‑mentioned facts. The learned lower Court has not thoroughly consi dered the material on record and thus fell in error in holding that all the documents were proved The appellant said in his petition and statement A that from the written statement filed in his earlier petition he learnt on 27th October, 1980 about the order of termination, dated 21st July, 1979. From 27th October, 1981 the grievance notice and the grievance petition are within time. The learned lower Court did not care to see the grievance petition. The mere fact that the order of termination is, dated 21st July 1979 was not sufficient. It was to be seen whether it was served or fromlB what date it came to the knowledge of the appellant. The petition andl the grievance notice were thus within time.

3.As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct' the re‑instatement of the appellant with 50% back benefits.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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