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‑457 of 1985, decided on 2nd October, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI oaf 1968)‑--
‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Termination of service for alleged misconduct--Neither service of charge‑sheet proved nor enquiry, held‑‑Service of second show‑cause notice, in circumstances, held, mean gloss and termination order not sustainable.
Faizur Rehman for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 29th September, 1985.
The decision, dated 7‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.
2. The respondent was a Baildar. On the grounds of slackness and carelessness, disobedience of order and willful absence, his services were terminated. It was alleged that charge‑sheet was served by sending the same in envelop Exh.P‑7 which was received back as refused. The learned lower Court has rightly held that. the date given in Exh.R/4 does not coincide with the date of the report of the postman appearing on envelop Exh.P.7. The covering letter Exh.P.4 of the charge‑sheet carries the date as 1‑12‑1980, whereas the report of refusal recorded by the postman on Exh.P.7 is, dated 2‑1‑1980. A letter could not carry a report of refusal of 31‑12‑1979 that had been 'despatched on 1‑12‑1980. So no charge‑sheet was served. So far as holding of inquiry is concerned, R . W‑2 admitted that the order of termination was passed without holding any inquiry. Since one of the allegations was of misconduct and the respondent was a permanent employee, charge sheeting and holding of inquiry were a must according to Standing Order 12 (5) read with Standing Order 15 (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 before terminating the services. It has been argued that show cause notice Exh.P‑3 was served. This is a second show‑cause notice and since neither service of charge sheet was proved, nor holding of inquiry was established, service of second show‑cause notice was meaningless. So the order of termination of services was not sustainable and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court.
3. 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