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. SL-551 of 1983, decided on 28th January, 1984,
-- S. O. 15(4)-Termination of service for misconduct - Charge -sheet and holding of enquiry-Requirement-Applicable equally to temporary and permanent workmen-Termination order without compliance with such requirement, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court awarding re-instatement - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25 & 38(3).
-- S. 37-Appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal - Employee whether or not a workman - Question of fact-Depending upon evidence as regards nature of duties-Cannot be raised for first time during arguments in appeal.
Safdar Jang for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 25th January, 1984.
The decision, dated 29th September, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal.
2. The services of the respondent were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, habitual absence from 14th September, 1981 to 25th September, 1981 and late coming. No show-cause notice was given as admitted by R. W. I and no enquiry was held. As the allegations amounted to misconduct giving of charge-sheet and holding enquiry were necessary. R. W. 1 said that as the respondent was temporary, no charge-sheet was given. Appointment letter Exh. P. 6 shows that he was appointed on 4th December, 1980. He was terminated in September, 1982. He, thus, had become permanent on completing the probationary period of three months. Apart from it Standing Order 15(4) does not make any distinction between a permanent and temporary workman. The word 'workman' only is used.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was not a workman being a peon. No such objection was taken in the written statement, so the respondent did not produce any evidence as regards his duties. A question of fact cannot be raised for the first time during arguments in appeal The respondent was rightly directed to be re-instated in service.
4. As a result, the appeal is 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