Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No.LHR‑265 of 1985, decided on 12th October, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Service of charge‑sheet‑‑Alleged misconduct to be brought to notice of accused within one month of its coming to knowledge of employer‑‑Requirement mandatory‑‑No charge sheet served‑‑Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court‑‑Labour Court permitting employer to hold fresh enquiry‑‑Charge‑sheet not having been issued within prescribed period of one month, permission by Labour Court for holding enquiry, in circumstances, held, illegal‑‑Order of Labour Court allowing Employer to hold enquiry set aside by appellate Tribunal.
Zafar Malik for Appellant,
Ali Ahmad Awan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 4‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Ferozewala at Lahore has been challenged, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service but the respondent was permitted to hold inquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant. Back benefits were directed to depend upon the result of the inquiry if any made by the respondent.
2. Admittedly, no charge‑sheet was issued to the appellant before his services were terminated. According to Standing Order 15(4), the alleged misconduct is brought to the notice of the employee concerned within one month of its commission or within one month of the date on which the employer comes to know of it. Period of limitation for charge- sheeting the appellant had expired long before the Labour Court had permitted fresh inquiry. This is a mandatory provision of Standing Order 15(4) that the misconduct should be brought to the knowledge of the worker concerned. Since no charge‑sheet was given, no question of holding inquiry in the charges could arise. The permission given by the learned lower Court for holding inquiry is illegal and thus not sustainable and the appellant could have been directed to be re‑instated without allowing the, respondent to hold inquiry into the charges.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant stated on oath that after the termination of his services, he remained jobless. So he was entitled to back benefits also.
4. As a result the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the permission given to the respondent to hold inquiry is set aside and the appellant is allowed) full back benefits.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer