Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. LHR‑79 of 1984, decided on 11th March, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑S. O. 15(4) ‑ Dismissal for misconduct--Charge‑sheet ‑Limitation‑One month of commission or within one month of knowledge of alleged misconduct‑Plea of charge‑sheet being time- barred raised in grievance notice and refuted by employer in reply to grievance notice‑Plea not taken in grievance petition but raised in statement before Labour Court and no evidence in rebuttal produced‑Charge‑sheet not proved to have been served within one month of knowledge of misconduct‑Whole proceedings including impugned dismissal order, in circumstances, held fall to ground and Labour Court erred in dismissing grievance petition on grounds that plea of time‑barred charge‑sheet not taken in grievance petition-- Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A and 38(3).
Haider for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 5th March, 1985.
The decision dated 28th January, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the appellant after being charge‑sheeted and holding an inquiry against him was dismissed, were that he made interpolation in the record with the intention of making illegal gain and that he was responsible for the shortage of articles worth Rs. 7,162.26. The appellant in the grievance notice took up the plea that the charge-sheet was time‑barred. In reply to the grievance notice the respondent took up the position that from the knowledge of the misconduct the charge‑sheet was within time. The learned lower Court has held that since in the grievance petition the plea of the charge‑sheet being time barred was not taken, the respondent could not produce evidence. Since in the grievance notice plea was raised and it was refuted in reply, the respondent having the knowledge should have shown when checking was done during which interpolation came to light but no evidence was produced. The appellant repeated the plea in his statement but he was not cross‑examined on this point, nor any evidence was produced in rebuttal. Only the respondent knew when he had come to know of the interpolation made in the record, so the onus was upon him to disclose when the commission of misconduct came to his knowledge. The charge‑sheet, therefore, was not proved to have been given within one month of the knowledge of miscon duct. According to Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, when punishment of dismissal has been given, it is necessary to serve the charge‑sheet within one month of the commission of the misconduct or within one month of the knowledge of misconduct. The whole proceedings including the dismissal order fall to the ground. The learned lower Court thus erred in dismissing the grievance petition.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. However, as the appellant has succeeded only on a technical point, he is not entitled to back benefits.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer