Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-780 of 1979, decided on 8th March, 1982.

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

---S.O.15--Dismissal from service for willful absence--Service of notice/ charge-sheet, not legally effected--Ex parte enquiry held unjustified- Order of dismissal set aside--Employee re-instated in service----Employer to start fresh enquiry within specified period otherwise employee will be entitled to back benefits.

Mohammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 30th January, 1982.

The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent became absent from 8-12-1977 and, thereafter, never resumed his duty. He was charge-sheeted on 13-9--1978 and the charge-sheet sent at his home address came back with the report of the postman that the addressee had refused to accept it. The enquiry made against the respondent culminated in his dismissal. The respondent after serving grievance notice challenged the order of his dismissal before the lower Court in an application brought under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in which he took up the plea that he had fallen ill and had been sending applications for leave supported by medical certificates but instead of granting leave, the appellant dismissed him. There are two envelops sent to the respondent through registered post. One carries the report dated 21-10-1978 which does not bear the signatures of the postman. This envelop is Exh. R-1. The second envelop is Exh.R-6. It carries the date as 20/9. This envelop does not carry the report of refusal. Since this envelop was sent for the first time, it may be containing the charge-sheet and Exh. R-1 containing the enquiry notice. Both the envelops are empty, therefore, it cannot be said definitely .as to which envelop carried the charge-sheet and which envelop carried the enquiry notice. So far as Exh.R-1 is concerned, since the report does not bear the signatures of the postman, it cannot be said that in reality the respondent had refused to receive the registered letter. The postman was not examined. So far as envelop Exh.R-6 is concerned, since it does not bear the report to the fact that the respondent had refused to accept service, it cannot be said that the service of this letter was legally effected. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly, held that the ex parte enquiry was not justified. In these circumstances, the lower Court was justified in ordering the re-instatement of the respondent allowing the appellant to make fresh enquiry, leaving the question of back benefits resting on the result of the enquiry, This direction is also justified that if the A appellant does not make an enquiry, the respondent would be entitled to back benefits, but the lower Court should have fixed some period within which the enquiry be started. I, therefore, order that if the enquiry has not been made, it should be started within one month from today, otherwise, the respondent will be entitled to back benefits also as directed by the lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which 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.