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.
1982 Appeals Nos. LHR‑176 and GA‑191 of 1982, heard ob 24th April, 1982.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3) read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1969), S. O. 15(4)‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Charge‑sheet served not within one month of .alleged misconduct coming to knowledge of employer‑Re‑instatement awarded by Labour Court, in circum stances, held, on account of technical defect of time‑barred charge sheet hence back benefits rightly disallowed.
Zafar Saleem for Appellant.
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 24th April, 1982.
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 25th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. P. R. T. B. has challenged the order of reinstate ment, whereas Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din has challenged that portion of the impugned decision whereby back benefits were disallowed to him. As the two appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed off together through this single judgment, in which P. R. T. B. will be described as the appellant while Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din as the res pondent.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that instead of using regular ticket books, he issued tickets to the passengers from army and student books, but deposited half fare embezzling Rs. 2,457.49. The embezzlement is alleged to have come to light on auditing. The respondent was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held against him, which culminated in his dismissal.
3. The learned trial Judge has re‑instated the respondent on the sole ground that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the charge‑sheet was not time‑barred, inasmuch as the audit report was submitted on 30th January, 1979 and the charge -sheet is dated 8th February, 1979. Although in the charge‑sheet it is mentioned that the auditor's report was made on 30th January, 1979 but actually the report does not bear any date. The auditor before the Enquiry Officer did not give the date. The auditor was ordered on 27th September, 1978 to audit the accounts. In the absence of the date on the report of the auditor, the presumption would be that without any loss of time auditing was done in the same month or at least in the next month when the order was given to the auditors to audit the accounts. In the charge‑sheet the date of checking of the bus and the date of the report both are given as 30th January, 1979 but the case against the respondent was not that on a particular date he had used student and army books. The appellant in these circumstances failed to show that the charge-sheet was given within one month of the knowledge of the commission of misconduct. The learned trial Judge on account of this technical defect rightly ordered the re‑instatement of the respondent. As only on technical defect the respondent was re‑instated, back benefits were rightly disallowed Resultantly both the appeals are without any force and are dismissed in limine.
A.E. Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer