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‑238 of 1985, decided on 8th May, 1985.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Charge‑sheet‑‑Time limit‑‑Charge relating to absence‑ Charge‑sheet to be served within one month from last date of alleged absence.
‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Notice of enquiry‑‑Notice published in newspapers without making an attempt to serve personal notice‑‑Does not satisfy legal requirements‑‑Notice may be published in newspapers if notice sent on address of accused not served.
Abdul Majid Qureshi for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 5th May, 1985.
The decision, dated 18‑3‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he remained absent without leave for more than 10 days. The respondent had applied for leave from 3‑12‑1981 to 14‑12‑1981 supported by a medical certificate. The case of the appellant was that leave was disallowed and the respondent was called upon to resume duty but he failed, therefore, after being charge‑sheeted and holding an enquiry against him he was dismissed from service it was pleaded by the appellant before the learned Lower Court that the grievance notice was time‑barred. On the other hand it was pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred.
3. The plea that the grievance notice was time‑barred was not established. According to the appellant the respondent was informed on 6‑4‑1982 about the order of dismissal. The respondent preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 19‑3‑1983 and the intimation of dismissing the same was conveyed to him, vide letter Exh. P.6. Copy of the grievance notice is Exh.P.7 which bears the date as 2‑6‑1983. Exh.P.7/1 is the postal receipt which carries the date as 11‑6‑1983, thus the grievance notice was well within three months from the date of dismissal.
4. Charge‑sheet is Exh. P.3, dated 7‑3‑1982. The period of absence given in the charge‑sheet is from 5‑12‑1981. No date is given up to which the respondent is alleged to have remained absent, which means that according to the appellant, respondent had remained absent up to the date he was charge‑sheeted, but this is wrong that the absence continued to the said date. The respondent stated before the learned lower Court that he had reported for duty on 15‑12‑1981 but no duty was given. The absence, therefore, was up to 14‑12‑1981 and not beyond that. Charge‑sheet, therefore, should have been given within 30 days from 14‑12‑1981 i.e. up to 14‑1‑1982, but since the date of the charge‑sheet is 7‑3‑1982 it is time‑barred.
5. So far as the merits are concerned the statement of the respondent to the effect that he applied for leave and sent medical certificate Exh. P.1 under postal receipt Exh. P.1/1 and A.D. receipt Exh. P.1/2 does not stand rebutted. In rebuttal one witness Muhammad Afzal, P.W.1 was examined who deposed that he had held enquiry ex parte. He did not say that no application for leave and no medical certificate was received. No doubt a general notice against the absentees was got published in the newspaper, cutting of which is Exh. R.3 without making an attempt to serve a personal notice, the notice published in the Newspaper did not satisfy the requirement of law. Notices may be got published in the Newspaper if notices sent on the address of the employee have not been served. There is no evidence that any notice was issued to the respondent and that he has refused to accept service or that it had come back without service.
6. So far as the enquiry is concerned there was no justification to hold ex parte enquiry. It was not proved that any notice of enquiry was served upon the respondent. So the respondent was rightly directed by the learned lower Court to be reinstated.
7. So far as the back benefits are concerned, the statement of the respondent to the effect that since the date of dismissal he remained unemployed was not rebutted. So he was rightly allowed back benefits by the learned lower Court.
8. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal 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