Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑386 of 1983, decided on 12th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.47‑‑Application for permission to dismiss workman rejected by Labour Court on grounds that charge‑sheet served was time‑barred‑‑No evidence indicating as to when alleged misconduct came to knowledge of employer‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties.

Khalid Farooq for Petitioner.

Faiz Ullah Khan Rana for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8^th July, 1984.

This is a revision giving information that the order dated 29‑5‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2 Lahore dismissing the application of the petitioner for permission to dismiss the respondent is wrong and illegal.

2. The respondent is a conductor. He wanted to go to India and gave an application for Visa describing himself in it as a student. He was delivered a charge‑sheet on 2‑8‑1980 and an enquiry was held against him.

3. The learned lower Court has refused to accord permission under section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the reason that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred. The respondent was charge sheeted on the information given by the Additional Inspector‑General Police dated 23‑6‑1980. It was received in the Office of the P.U.T.C. on 30‑6‑1980. There is an endorsement dated 30‑6‑1980 to the, effect "Disciplinary action may be taken against him but it does not appear who signed this endorsement. The learned lower Court has not disclosed in its judgment from which evidence he found that this endorsement was signed by the District Manager. No designation or seal is given below the signatures. The learned lower Court did not give opportunity of evidence to the parties, therefore, it could not be established if in reality the District Manager had come to know of the misconduct on 30‑6‑1980. There are some other endorsements which are dated 12‑7‑1980 and 23‑7‑1980. If opportunity of production of evidence had been given. it may have been shown that endorsement of 23‑7‑1980 and not of 30‑6‑1980 was made by the District Manager. Needless to say that the competent authority was District Manager and as there is no evidence when the District Manager came to know of the misconduct, it cannot be definitely said whether the charge‑sheet was or was not time‑barred.

4. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of learned lower Court, the case is remanded back with the direction that it be re‑decided after affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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