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. QSA‑228 of 1984, decided on 9th May, 1984.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Absence without leave for ten days and not for more than ten days‑‑Does not amount to misconduct.
Sajjad Raza Jaffary for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 16‑4‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated ire service without back benefits.
2. The allegation as contained in the show‑cause notice was absence without leave from 23‑9‑1983 to 2‑10‑1983. The learned lower Court has accepted the grievance petition on the ground that the absence being for not more than ten days, did not constitute misconduct and that no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to cross‑examine the witnesses examined against him in the enquiry, inasmuch as the words "opportunity to cross‑examine was given" were added afterwards with different ink. Charge‑sheet Exh. R‑1 is, dated 3‑10‑1983 and the Enquiry Officer stated before the learned lower Court that the respondent had attended on 3‑10‑1983 and on the same day charge‑sheet was delivered to him. 3rd October was the 11th day. So, action was taken for the absence for ten days and not for more than ten days. The learned lower Court time rightly held that such an absence did not amount to misconduct.
3. The learned lower court is correct in saying that no opportunity of cross‑examination was given. The Words "cross‑examination nil, opportunity given" are in different ink, which shows that these words were added much afterwards. If at the time of recording evidence these words had been written in the presence of the respondent, they would have been in the same ink with which the Examination‑in‑chief and other proceedings were recorded. The respondent was thus rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer