Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑556 of 1980, decided on 31st January, 1982.

‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Consideration of extraneous matter Effect‑Prejudice‑‑Past record and fact regarding other pending enquiries against accused taken into consideration by competent authority‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced and Labour Court not justified in dismissing grievance petition against dismissal order‑Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

Khalid Farooq for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 19th January, 1982.

The appellant has challenged the decision, dated 29th May, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby his application for re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a conductor and on 12th August, 1979 his bus was checked. It was found that from two. passengers he had recovered fare but had not issued tickets to them. Form T. T.‑40 was issued to him at the spot, in reply to which, he denied the allegations and said that the passengers had made false statements against him. He was charge‑sheeted on 18th August, 1972 (Exh. P. 1) and filed reply to it. An enquiry was held and on 17th January, 1980, he was dismissed from service vide dismissal Order Exh. D. 19. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the dismissal order the dismissing authority said that the personal record of the appellant was poor and many cases were pending against him. He says that extraneous matter was brought under consideration of which the appellant bad no notice and there has been no opportunity to defend himself. The dismissing authority prejudiced his mind by looking into the file about which the appellant had no notice and to answer the adverse remarks. The fact that there were pending many cases against the appellant was also not brought to his knowledge and opportunity given to answer. If the dismissing authority had not considered the personal record and the fact that some cases were already pending against the appellant, he may have prescribed some lesser punishment short of dismissal. So the appellant has been prejudiced. In these circumstances the lower Court was not justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision and the dismissal order, direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. Since on a technical defect, the appellant has been re‑instated, he shall not be entitled to 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.