Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA-811 of 1977, decided on 8th March, 1982.

---S.O.15--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25-A- Grievance petition--Dismissal from service on charges of misconduct- Challenged on ground that Enquiry Officer did not believe statements of witnesses examined by appellant--Grievance notice and petition also barred by time--Held: Labour Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Enquiry Officer and dismissing authority--Enquiry Officer has believed evidence produced before it, Labour Court cannot say that evidence was not believable.

Appellant in person.

Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1st March, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 14-11-197 7 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. On 14-12-1976 the appellant was charge-sheeted on three charges. Charge No.2 was dropped by the Enquiry Officer and by the dismissing authority. Charge No.1 was that the appellant was transferred to Chapral Branch on 9-6-1976 but he refused to receive the order of transfer and did not comply with it. The third charge was that he had failed to perform his duty on account of becoming absent from 10-7-1976 onward.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that only one witness Sakhi Ahmad was examined by the management at the enquiry to prove that the appellant had refused to receive the charge-sheet, whereas the appellant examined two witnesses but the Enquiry Officer believed the statement of Sakhi Ahmad. He says that the learned lower Court should have believed the statements of the witnesses examined by the appellant before the Enquiry officer and has cited P L D 1978 S. C 207. The Labour Courts cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the dismissing authority. If the Enquiry Officer has believed the evidence produced before him, the Labour Court cannot say that the evidence was not believable. Of course, if by the evidence the charge does not stand proved or the report is perverse, the Labour Courts can set aside the findings. The authority cited by the learned counsel does not support him in this respect. Learned counsel has not said that by the evidence of Sakhi Ahmad the charge that the appellant refused to receive the transfer order was not proved. In the case from which the authority arose no evidence had been produced by the employer to justify the order. Regarding charge No.3 learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had stated before the Enquiry Officer that he after 3-8-1976 had been going to the office but he was not sent for medical check-up. The appellant was desired to be sent for medical check-up to find out if in reality he was ill. He went afterwards when there was no occasion to verify about his illness. Learned counsel has said that before the appellant was recovered, he was not in a position to go to the- office. I do not find any force in this argument. If the appellant could go to the doctor, it was not difficult for him to get himself medically examined at the instance of the management when they wanted to satisfy about his illness. This is strange that otherwise the appellant was healthy and as soon as he came to know of the transfer order, he fell ill to such an extent that he could not even go to the doctor for medical check-up on the suggestion of the management. It appears that in order to avoid the transfer he had not received the transfer order and absented himself and sent application for leave. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the Labour Court that he had been going to the office but the management did not get him medically checked up. His plea, therefore, appears to be incorrect.

4. The very grievance petition and the grievance notice were time -barred. The order of dismissal was passed on 14-12-1976. The grievance notice was given on 24-3-1977 and the grievance petition was brought on 11-5-1977. At the time the dismissal order was passed subsection (6) was present in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to which, without serving grievance notice, grievance petition could be made within two months but it was not done. If notice was to be given then the period was three months from the date of dismissal. The order of dismissal having been passed on 14-12-1976 the notice could be given upto 13-3-1977 but it was sent on 24-3-1977 and the petition was brought on 11-5-1977. Thus the grievance petition and the grievance notice were time-barred.

5. In the circumstances discussed above, the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. I.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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