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.RI‑576 of 1984, decided on 28th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A t 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Enquiry defective Labour Court setting aside impugned dismissal order and permitting fresh enquiry‑‑Plea that charge‑sheet being time‑barred fresh enquiry could not be permitted‑‑Such plea raised before Labour Court after close of case by respondent employer and no opportunity to meet same by respondent available‑‑Order of Labour Court permitting fresh enquiry in circumstances, maintained in appeal by Appellate Tribunal with direction that point whether charge‑sheet was time‑barred shall remain open to be decided in enquiry and petitioner workman shall not be punished if charge‑sheet is, held, as time‑barred.
M.K. Khan for Appellant.
Mian Khalid Rashid for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1985.
The decision, dated 20‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service but the respondent has been permitted to hold fresh inquiry.
2. It has been argued that it was not necessary to allow fresh inquiry. The argument has not much force. It is the discretion of the Court to allow fresh inquiry. The learned lower Court has expressed the view that charges are very serious and the inquiry already held was defective, so fresh inquiry may be held. It has also been argued that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred, so fresh inquiry will be futile. The charge‑sheet is dated 27‑11‑1982. From the date of Exh.R‑6, however, the charge‑sheet seems to be within time but the appellant stated that on 21‑10‑1982 Muhammad Amin had disclosed the misconduct to the General Manager. If this is so, then the charge‑sheet becomes time‑barred. The respondent based his case on Exh.R‑6 but this document was tendered in evidence after the appellant had closed the case and thus had no opportunity to meet it. In these circumstances the case is liable to be remanded for the decision of the point if the charge‑sheet is within time or not but remand order will be prejudicial to the appellant, inasmuch as the impugned order of re‑instatement shall have to be set aside. If this is done, the appellant will again stand dismissed. In these circumstances, it appears proper that the point whether the charge‑sheet is time‑barred or within time may be kept open to be freshly decided by the respondent during inquiry and then by the learned lower Court if the case goes there. In this way both the parties will get opportunity to produce evidence on the point of the charge‑sheet is time‑barred or not and the appellant shall remain in service till the finalization of the inquiry.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by directing that the point if the charge‑sheet is time‑barred or not, shall remain open to be decided during the inquiry already permitted by the learned lower Court. If it is held to be time‑barred, the appellant shall not be punished.
A.E. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer