Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD-581 of 1980, decided on 7th June, 1982.

---S. 2(n)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4)--Clerk employed in power wing of WAPDA covered by definition of workman.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--

---S.O. 15(4)--Punishment of censure and forfeiture of dues challenged or want of enquiry and second show-cause notice--Held: Since no dismissal was awarded, enquiry was not necessary and legal formalities according to nature of case were duly observed.

Mian Mohammad Manzoor for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18th May, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 27-5-1980, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a Junior Clerk in Revenue Office of electricity branch of WAPDA and on 28-3-1979 he was served with a charge-sheet and was placed under suspension. The appellant replied to the charge -sheet and was given the punishment of censure and of forfeiture of the remaining dues for the period of suspension. The said punishments were challenged in the grievance petition from the dismissal of which the present appeal arises.

3. The plea taken by the appellant was that on account of his trade union activities he has been victimized but he could not substantiate. It was also contended that no enquiry was held and no second show-cause notice was given.

4. As the appellant is employed in the Power Wing he is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(n) read with Schedule II clause(xix)of the Workmen's Compensation Act and thus stood excluded from the definition of civil servant. Being a clerk he is covered by the definition of workman given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. No doubt, WAPDA has its own rules but since it is a statutory body and is not functioning by or under the Authority of Government; it does not come under the proviso of section 1, subsection (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and thus the said Ordinance applies to it. According to clause 4 of Standing Order No. 15 charge-sheeting and making enquiry are necessary where punishment of dismissal is to be awarded. Since in the present case no punishment of dismissal was awarded, making of enquiry was not necessary and thus no illegality was committed by imposing punishment of censure and forfeiture of the dues of the suspension period after considering the reply of the charge-sheet. Since the appellant was charge-sheeted he had been afforded the opportunity to show-cause and thus the necessary legal formalities to the nature of the case were duly observed.

5. As a .result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal which too is dismissed.

M. I.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.