Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. M. N. 627 of 1982, heard on 8th November, 1982.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑Inquiry defective or no inquiry at all held‑‑Permission to hold fresh inquiry while awarding re‑instatement Discretion of Labour Court‑Cannot be interfered with in appeal.
Syed Aqa Asif Jaffery and Mahmood Babar for Appellants.
Date of hearing : 8th November, 1982.
These appeals are directed against the decision, dated 25th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby the appellants were directed to be re‑instated but the respondent was allowed to make inquiry into the allegations made against them.
2. As the facts of all the appeals are the same they are being disposed of through this single judgment. The allegations made against the appellants were that they manhandled and abused Rizwan Mirza, Super. visor Weaving Polish Shift 'C' of the Mills. They were dismissed on 13th October, 1980.
3. Inquiry was made ex parte. The case of the respondent was that the appellants of their own accord did not participate in the inquiry where as the contention of the appellants in the lower Court was that they were not allowed to participate in the inquiry. The learned Presiding Officer has directed that the inquiry notice shall be served upon the appel lants through Office Incharge of the Khara where the appellants perform their duties. This direction has obviously been given to exclude the possibility of denial to receive inquiry notice or to refuse to accept the notice and then to plead that no notice was served. But the appellants have on the contrary made a point in appeal for getting the impugned order set aside. It has been argued that a false report will be obtained from the incharge of Khata about the refusal to accept the inquiry notice and again after making ex parte inquiry the appellants would be dismissed. It has been suggested that no notice of inquiry may be served by ordinary means if at all the direction of the learned lower Court about reinquiry is to be maintained. The direction to serve notice through khata incharge is not a special mode but ordinary mode of service. Always first of all attempt is made to serve notice in person through some massenger and only then if this is not possible other modes are adopted. So, there is nothing wrong in the direction given by the learned lower Court about the service of inquiry notice. However I further direct that if the incharge of khata fails to contact the appellants or any of them inquiry notice be served by other modes.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in case of defective inquiry, reinquiry may be ordered but not in cases of no inquiry. He says that in the present case no inquiry was made. If this was so the impugned order is all the more justified. Even in cases of no inquiry permission to make inquiry may be given. It is the direction of the Labour Court to allow or disallow reinquiry and no interference can be made in appeal in the exercise of such discretion.
With the observation made above the appeals are dismissed in limine.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer