Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.QSA‑361 of 1985, decided on 5th February, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Impugned dismissal order technically defective‑‑Back benefits cannot be awarded.

Syed Noor Ahmad for Appellant.

M.A. Hamid Awan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1986.

The decision, dated 2‑5‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with 56 per cent back benefits.

2. The allegations against the respondent were that he had laid false aspersions of theft against Taj Muhammad, Security Head Guard, Ghulam Shah, Security Supervisor and Muhammad Hanif, Security Guard. The charge‑sheet is Exh.Ra2, dated 23‑10‑1983. In reply Exh .R .l the respondent admitted to have accused Ghulam Shah and Taj Muhammad of theft but pleaded that on the asking of Muhammad Bashir, Security Guard, who had said that the Labour Officer wanted it. He did not make admission regarding Muhammad Hanif. In inquiry the witnesses did not give evidence against the respondent. The witnesses were recalled and extensively cross‑examined by the Inquiry Officer. Since the respondent had admitted the allegation so far as Taj Muhammad and Ghulam Shah were concerned, so inquiry was to make regarding the allegation that the respondent had accused Muhammad Hanif, Security Guard also. Since none of the prosecution witnesses deposed against the respondent, the allegation regarding Muhammad Hanif remained unproved. The order of dismissal is bad in law as by it the respondent was dismissed for falsely accusing Muhammad Hanif also of theft.

3. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred. No doubt from the date on which fault finding inquiry was ordered, the charge‑sheet was beyond 30 days but it does not stand proved that the said inquiry was ordered by the Authority who had charge‑sheeted the respondent. General Manager was competent to charge‑sheet but there is no evidence that it was he who had ordered investigation. So, the learned lower Court wrongly held that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred.

4. Since the order of dismissal was defective on account of giving finding that the respondent had accused Muhammad Hanif, Security Guard also of theft, the learned lower Court rightly directed the re‑instatement of the respondent but wrongly allowed 50 per cent back benefits to him. The respondent succeeded on account of a technical defect in the dismissal order, otherwise so far as Taj Muhammad ands Ghulam Shah are concerned, he admitted to have laid false charges of theft against them.

5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent.

A.E

Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.