Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑147 of 1984, heard on 10th April, 1985.

‑‑Removal from service‑Railway employee removed from service for alleged negligence‑No enquiry held‑Labour Court accepting grievance petition holding impugned order as illegal and allowing Railway administration to hold enquiry within 3 months‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal --Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellants,

Date of hearing

The order of Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VII dated 29th March 1984, is challenged in this appeal which is argued in Katcha Peshi before me.

2. The facts are that Khuda Bux was a Fireman and he alongwith the driver on 8th November, 1982 at Mehsar Railway Station rammed 3‑UP Goods Train on the loop line No. 4 at an excessive speed and ran into sand hump damaging 23 wagons. Khuda Bux was Fireman and the allegations against him were that he did not apply the emergency brakes at the time of incident and, therefore, he was given a notice that why action should not be taken against him.

3. Khuda Bux answered this notice while denying that he and the driver were asleep. To the contrary they were whistling all along but the emergency brakes and vacuum brakes failed and hence the incident took place not on account of their negligence but on account of failure of the brakes. This was considered by the D. S. Sukkur and on 7th March 1983, by Exh. 1‑C, be was reduced in rank to the post of cleaner for a period of 2 years. The petitioner Khuda Bux preferred a departmental appeal on 20th April, 1983, the result of which was that this appeal was decided in enhancing the punishment already imposed on him to the removal of the Fireman from service. The order, dated 6th July 1983, was challenged . by grievance petition which was decided by the Labour Court.

4. The Labour Court came to the decision that no domestice enquiry was held and that no chance was given to the petitioner to explain the position. Neither the domestic enquiry was held while passing the first order, dated 7th March 1983, nor any further domestic enquiry was held before passing the second order of removal from service on 6th July, 1983. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that both orders were illegal and he reinstated the position by allowing a time to the Railway Department to hold fresh enquiry within 3 months.

5. This order was challenged and I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Shabbir Awan and perused the impugned order.

6. The fact is that the domestic enquiry or any enquiry was not conducted by the Railway Department. The first punishment of reducing the rank of the petitioner was without enquiry. The second punishment and removal from service was also without enquiry. I find no fault with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and be bad given an option to the Railways Department to hold fresh enquiry within three months. There are no cogent reasons advanced by the learned counsel for admitting this appeal.

7. The appeal is, therefore, 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.