Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-20 of 1984, heard on 10th March, 1985.

‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct ‑ Domestic enquiry conducted ex parse‑Service of charge‑sheet‑Charge‑sheet stated to have been sent through post on given address not received‑Service of enquiry notice not proved beyond doubt ‑ Dismissal order received through post on same address‑Inference drawn by Labour Court that charge‑sheet and enquiry notice not served‑Order of Labour Court awarding re instatement with back benefits, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

S. Qamruddin Hassan for Appellants.

Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 10th March, 1985.

This is an appeal against order, dated 23rd January, 1984 whereby the 1st Sind Labour Court, Karachi, accepted the grievance petition of the respondent, Saeed Ahmed.

2. In nutshell, the facts are that the respondent, Saeed Ahmed was working as a Bench Fitter in the appellant establishment. On 5th August, 1981 he was told by the Plant Production Manager that he was transferred and he should contact the Manager, Personnel and Administration, for further posting. The respondent continued to contact the Manager, Personnel and Administration for further posting but he was told that he should wait and the orders would be issued in due course of time. Then, suddenly on 23rd September, 1981 the respondent received dismissal order through post. According to him he never received any show‑cause notice nor any enquiry was ever held against him and hence dismissal orders were issued against the norms of justice. He, therefore, filed grievance petition. In the reply statement it was submitted that respondent, remained absent from duty since 6th August, 1981 any intimation and authorized leave. He was given a show‑cause notice, dated 27th August, 1981 which was sent by registered post on the address furnished by the respondent himself. The show‑cause notice was returned by the postal authorities. On 2nd September, 1981 it is the allegation of the appellant establishment that the respondent came to the office of the management and the show‑cause notice was offered to him but he refused to receive it in presence of Mashkoor Hussain and Zaheer. On 9th September, 1981 he was charge‑sheeted and the charge‑sheet was sent to him by registered post which was not received by the respondent. He was, therefore, dismissed on 13th September, 1981 after the domestio enquiry was conducted ex perte against him.

3. I have heard both the Advocates, namely, Mr. S. Qamruddin Hassan, for the appellants and Mr. Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for the respondent. 1 have also perused the impugned order of the Labour Court.

4. The address given by the respondent is as under: ‑

"Saeed Ahmed son of Himayat Ali Shah, Barrack No. 9, Near Shah Hotel, Jetlines, Karachi."

The arguments of the respondent's Advocate are that he received the dismissal order, dated 13th September, 1981 on this address whereas he did not receive the notice, charge‑sheet etc., on the same address. This would indicate that neither the charge‑sheet was issued nor the notice was issued but it was manipulated through the postman to make the endorsement. This argument carries sufficient force and it cannot be repelled by any reasons. It appears that the respondent went to get the posting orders from time to time but he was put off on one pretext or the other to give him the posting orders. Even the allegation that he was given the notice to receive in presence of Mashkoor Hussain and Zaheer but the respondent refused to refuse it, is doubtful. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that on what earthly reason be would refuse the notice. There are no reasons to refuse the notice when lie was attending the office of the Management from time to time to get the posting order. This piece of evidence was disbelieved by the Labour Court and it was worth disbelieving. The Labour Court has clearly mentioned that the witnesses produced by the Management were interested. No witness from the Postal Authorities was produced by the appellant establishment.

5. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel and in view of the reasoning advanced by the learned Labour Court, I came to the conclusion that the Management has failed to prove that the show‑cause notice, charge‑sheet and the enquiry letters were duly served on the respondent. There was no justification for Management to hold an ex parte enquiry. The order of the Labour Court has reinstated the res pondent with full back benefits and I find no reasons to interfere with it and accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.

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.