Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑42 of 1983, decided on 24th April, 1984.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for mis conduct of absence without leave‑Charge‑sheet sent through post received back undelivered and then published in newspapers‑Enquiry notice neither served nor published‑Dismissal order passed without enquiry and legal formalities‑‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, not approved and set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding reinstate ment without back benefits because of no statement that appellant (petitioner) was unemployed during intervening period.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Appellant.

Syed Muhammad Naqi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th April, 1984.

The decision, dated 23rd December, 1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he remained absent from duty without leave. The appellant was granted leave from 28th February, 1981 to 5th March, 1981. Extension upto 3rd April, 1981 too was allowed. But according to the respondent, no application for further extension from 4th April, 1981 to 30th June, 1981 was received, nor leave was extended. Charge‑sheet Exh. R. 1 was sent by registered post but it came back undelivered with the report that address was incomplete. The letter was not repeated. Street number was also given. The charge‑sheet was then got published on 8th .June, 1981 but newspaper was not brought on the file. A cutting has been brought but the chit containing the date is stitched with it. It cannot be said that actually publication was made on 8th June, 1981.

3. Apart from it no enquiry notice was sent. The argument is without any force that since the charge‑sheet had come back undelivered; enquiry notice, if had been sent, would have come back, legal formalities are to be complied with. Letter of dismissal was sent on the same, address and it was delivered. If the said letter could reach the appellant, the enquiry notice too could have reached him if it had been sent. More over, the notice published in the newspaper was neither a charge‑sheet nor an enquiry notice. It was a notice calling upon the absentees to resume duty. The learned lower Court erred in holding that it was not, necessary to hold enquiry. Since the report of the postman was apparently wrong, another letter containing charge‑sheet should have been sent or at least the charge sheet‑should have been published in the newspaper. Sen ding of enquiry notice too was necessary.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned, decision and the order of removal from service, the appellant is directed, to be re‑instated in service. As the appellant did not say that he remained' unemployed during the period of his dismissal, he is not 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.