Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑550 and 551 of 1984, decided on 2nd December, 1984.

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

--‑‑S.O.15(4)‑‑Show‑cause notice or charge‑sheet for punishment of dismissal Limitation One month‑‑Provision mandatory‑‑Punishment cannot be legally awarded if show‑cause notice time‑barred‑‑Show‑cause notice sent through post received back undelivered due to wrong address‑‑No attempt made to send same on correct address and delivered to accused after prescribed limitation period of one month‑‑Show‑cause notice, in circumstances, held, time‑barred.

‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑‑‑Charge of misappropriation Ticketless passengers‑‑Fare allegedly received‑‑TT‑40 Form mentioning that accused confronted with passengers accusing him of receiving fare at time of checking‑‑Accused, in circumstances, held, rightly found guilty on basis of evidence of checker before Enquiry Officer.

A.Q.M. Shafiqul Islam for Appellant.

Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th November, 1984.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 23‑8‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, directing the re‑instatement of Muhammad Sharif (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has in its appeal challenged the direction of re‑instatement of the respondent. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed was that he had realised bus fare from 22 lady passengers but had not issued tickets to them and thus misappropriated the said fare. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that where offence has been established to the hilt, no indulgence can be shown by the Labour Courts on account of technicalities. He says that even if the charge‑sheet was time‑barred, since the misappropriation has been established the dismissal order should not have been disturbed. The argument is not tenable. Provisions of law cannot be defied. When law has provided that show‑cause notice should be served within one month in a case ending in the punishment of dismissal, such a punishment cannot be legally awarded if the show‑cause notice is time‑barred. This provision of Standing Order 15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is mandatory in nature, so should be strictly adhered to. It has been argued that the respondent avoided the service of charge‑sheet by pretending illness, so was not entitled to the benefits of the technical defect. Firstly, it is not established on the record that the respondent was not ill and secondly that his absence was a hindrance in the service of the show cause notice within time: Since the show‑cause notice had come back unserved with the report of the postman that no such person was found on the given address, the show‑cause notice should have been sent again on the correct address but it was not done. The address given on the envelop containing the show‑cause notice is wrong. Admittedly, the correct address of the respondent was of Kot Nasir‑ud‑Din but the letter was sent on the address of Manzoor Jhalla Teja Singh. The address of Kot Nasir‑ud‑Din. on Exh.R‑9 appears to have been fabricated afterwards because the report on Ex.R‑9 of the postman is not about the said address. Show‑cause notice was delivered to the respondent when he returned on duty after his recovery from illness on 30‑3‑1982, whereas the misconduct was committed in November 1981. So, the charge‑sheet was time‑barred.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the respondent was not confronted with the without‑ticket‑passengers, the .conviction could not be based upon the statement of the checkers. In TT‑40 it is mentioned that the respondent had been confronted with the passengers. The respondent in his reply to TT‑40 did not say that he was not confronted. Since the passengers had in his presence accused him of receiving the fare, he was rightly found guilty on the evidence of the checker. The respondent did not examine any of the without‑ticket‑passengers either in the enquiry or before the learned lower Court. So, the guilt was duly brought home to him and he got the benefit of the technical defect only and was rightly disallowed back benefits.

4. As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed in limine.

A. E.

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.