Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑866 of 1980, decided on 23rd February, 1992,

‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Enquiry Officer not appointed by competent authority has no jurisdiction to conduct enquiry‑Dismissal order based upon such enquiry ‑ Not sustainable ‑‑ Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside order of Labour Court and impugned dismissal order awarding reinstatement‑Reinstatement being for technical defect appellant, held, not entitled to back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

Shamim Ahmad, Representative for Appellant.

Kanwar Shamim Akhtar for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 23rd February 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 20th December, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, thereby his grievance petition for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant was fitter helper in the respondent Mills. The allegation made against him was that on 7th of April, 1979 he was found wandering without any purpose on the roof. On 8th April, 1979 three thans of cloth were found wrapped in canvassed on the said roof. A case was got registered with the police after making private investigation in which the appellant is alleged to have confessed that he had stolen the cloth. He was charge‑sheeted on 13th April, 1979. The reply filed by him to the charge‑sheet is dated 9th May, 1979. During inquiry evidence of confession was produced and the Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty. There is a technical defect which is that the inquiry was not appointed by the General Manager. A clerk suggested to make an inquiry and also suggested an officer to be appointed as an Inquiry Officer but the General Manager only ordered for the inquiry but neither appointed the officer suggested by the clerk nor any other officer as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer who made the inquiry, therefore, had jurisdiction for not having been appointed by the competent authority. This fact most probably escaped the notice of the learned Presiding' Officer of the lower. Court. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal direct reinstatement of the appellant. Since on a technical defect the appellant has been reinstated he is not entitled to back benefits.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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