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.
Appeals Nos. FD‑402 and 414 of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1985.,,T
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Grievance petition against‑‑Evidence in domestic enquiry materially different from charge- sheet‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly directed., re‑instatement of petitioner.
Saleem Baig for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 9th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 8‑6‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding, Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged by both the parties in the two appeals captioned above. Hussain Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter described as "the appellant has challenged the direction of re‑instatement, whereas Syed Sarfraz Hussain Shah (hereinafter to be called "the respondent") has in his appeal claimed back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent for which he was dismissed from service were that he cut jokes with an employee of other department;;, who had brought the Dak and when Mr. Afzal Rahi who at the relevant .;a time was officiating as Chief Accountant prevented him from cutting jokes, the respondent threatened him to do something against him. The learned lower Court has not adverted to the allegation that that respondent threatened the acting Chief Accountant. It has been argued that by the evidence the allegation was duly proved, so the respondent actually committed misconduct and not that he only foolishly paid a deaf ear to the advice of the Incharge. The evidence is quite different from the allegation contained in the charge‑sheet. The charge‑sheet suggests that the respondent said to Mr. Rahi that he would do something to him, but the evidence is that the respondent had said that he would see him, outside the Mills. Mr. Rahi said that the respondent had replied to him that he could not stop him from cutting jokes and continued making noise but in the charge‑sheet it is not mentioned. Normally, a subordinate would not insist upon cutting jokes on being stopped. So what Mr. Rahi has stated in his statement is not believable. It appears that the respondent did not give any threat and since cutting of jokes was a foolish and act of irresponsibility and did not amount to misconduct, so something more was added wrongly. The material discrepancy between the charge‑sheet and the evidence makes the case doubtful. So, the respondent was rightly directed to be re‑instated in service. Since he did not say that he remained jobless, he was rightly disallowed back benefits.
3. As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
A.B. Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer