Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Lhr-102 of 1981, decided on 13th July, 1982.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1868)----

---S.O.15--Dismissal from service as habitual late-comer--Ten instances of late coming within a month--Quantum of delay not mentioned--No written explanations called for--Appellant's plea that he was verbally directed to perform outdoor duty before attending office not rebutted- Held: Late coming of appellant during one month, in absence of quantum of delay, amounted to violation of rules but not misconduct--Appellant re-instated in service without back benefits.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Mahboob Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1982.

This appeal aiise-9 from the decision dated 21-1-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. The charge against the appellant was that he was habitual late comer. He was posted as Wastage and Leakage Inspector. Ten instances of his late coming in the month of November, 1978 were brought on the record. The dates are 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th. It is not mentioned in the charge-sheet for how much time he was late on the above-mentioned dates. The plea taken by the appellant was that under the verbal instructions of his superiors, he before reaching the office, used to go to the Ilaqa for making a round and for checking and after discharging that duty, he used to come to his office and marked his attendance in the register. In the charge-sheet it is also mentioned that the appellant was verbally reprimanded for coming late but the reprimands had no effect upon him. It means that never any explanation of the appellant was called for his late coming. Since no written explanation was called, it strengthens the stand taken by the appellant that he under the instructions of his superiors used to go to Ilaqa for inspection and after making inspection used to come to the office, therefore, he was late. The immediate officer of the appellant was not examined to deny that he had verbally asked the appellant to inspect his area first and then to come to the office. The solitary witness examined by the respondent namely, Khalid Pervez, Senior Clerk, (RW-1) did not say that no instructions were given to the appellant to inspect his area first and then to attend the office.

3. The other thing is that late coming only in one month cannot show that a habit of late coming had developed in the appellant. The other thing, which does not show that the allegation does not amount to misconduct, is that no time is disclosed for which the appellant was late. If he was late, by few minutes, it did not amount to misconduct. If he was late for sufficient time and his late coming had scattered on several months, it could be said that it had become a habit of the appellant to come late. The act of late coming of the appellant amounted to the violation of the rules, which is not a misconduct. Some other punishment short of termination or dismissal may have been prescribed, but since the late coming of the appellant did not amount to misconduct, the punishment of dismissal was not called for.

4. For the reasons given above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court and the dismissal order, direct the reinstatement of the a0pellant. Since admittedly he had been coming late and did not receive written instructions from his boss to inspect the area first and then to attend the office, I am not inclined to allow him back benefits.

M. I.

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.