Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑49 of 1985, decided on 8th July, 1985.

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Vague charge‑‑Effect‑‑Accused was required to submit reply to charge‑sheet which was to be considered by employer and if employer felt that matter should be inquired into he would appoint an Enquiry Officer‑‑Accused would not be in a position to reply to a vague charge and employer would not be in a position to decide whether reply was satisfactory‑‑Mere fact that in evidence before Enquiry Officer allegation was disclosed and proved was not sufficient to remove vagueness of charge‑sheet‑‑Accused alleged to have misbehaved and abused his Officer‑‑Plea that actual words allegedly amounting to misbehaviour were not mentioned and actual alleged abuses were not reproduced in charge‑sheet hence it was vague‑‑In evidence it was stated that attendance register was snatched by accused from his officer using filthy language against him‑‑Snatching of attendance register having not been mentioned in charge‑sheet same, in circumstances, held, vague to extent of alleged misbehaviour‑‑Repetition in charge‑sheet actual words of abuses being very indecent and vulgar, were justifiably avoided.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑--

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Multiple charges‑‑Accused charged of two charges both amounting to misconduct viz. (i) misbehaviour, and (ii) abusing, using very indecent and filthy language against his boss‑‑Charge of misbehaviour not proved due to vagueness‑‑Circumstances indicating that employer would have passed dismissal order even if charge of misbehaviour had not been proved‑‑Evidence relating to charge of misbehaviour though discrepant but charge not appearing to be false and concocted‑‑Labour Court rightly dismissed grievance petition against dismissal from service‑‑Held: Cases of disorderly behaviour and acts subvervise of discipline should be seriously taken notice of because otherwise it would become difficult for controlling authorities to take duty from their subordinates.

1981 P L C 984 ref.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.

Mahboob Alam for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.

The decision dated 22‑12‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5 Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegations for which the appellant was charge‑sheeted and after holding an enquiry dismissed were two‑fold. He is alleged to have misbehaved and abused his officer. The actual word written in the charge‑sheet is (BATTAMEZI) So, far as the former allegation is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge‑sheet is vague inasmuch as the words which according to the respondent amount to misbehaviour were not used and so far as abuses are concerned the actual buses were not reproduced In evidence it was said that when his incharge wanted to mark him absent, the appellant snatched the attendance register and used filthy language in his favour. Snatching of register amounts to misbehaviour and according to the learned counsel for the appellant as in the charge‑sheet it was not said that the appellant snatched the register, the charge to this extent in vague. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that so far as the charge of misbehaviour is concerned since in the evidence it was said that the appellant snatched the register and defence witnesses also supported this aspect saying that the appellant had respectfully taken the register from his boss, therefore, the defect of vagueness was cured. I cannot agree with the learned counsel. What actually the appellant is alleged to have said was not disclosed in the charge‑sheet so it was vague so far as the charge of misbehaviour, is concerned. There is no material to prove that the employee has committed his guilt. He is taken to be innocent unless charge is proved against him. The provision of law contained in Orders 15(4) is that after the worker concerned submits his reply to the charge‑sheet, it to be considered by the employer and if he feels the matter should be inquired into he appoints an Enquiry Officer. Bur where the charge is vague, the worker concerned is not in a position to reply to it and the employer is not in a position to decide whether the reply is satisfactory or not. The mere fact that in evidence the allegations were disclosed and proved is not sufficient to remove the defect of vagueness of the charge‑sheet. So, I hold that so far as the charge of misbehaviour is concerned it was vague and, therefore, no order of dismissal could be based upon it. However, so far as abuses are concerned there was justification to avoid the repetition of actual words as they were very indecent vulgar and clandestine.

But, question for consideration is whether 1981 P L C 984 is applicable to this case or not. Usually when there are two charges and both amount to misconduct but only one has been proved the benefit goes to the worker. In view of the fact that the appellant used very indecent and filthy language in favour of his boss, the employer would have passed the order of dismissal even if the allegation of misbehaviour had not been proved. So, in my view the abovementioned ruling is not attracted to this case. The evidence no doubt is discrepant but it does not appear that it is false or concocted. So, the charge was amply proved and the learned lower Court rightly dismissed the grievance petition. The cases of disorderly behaved and acts subrevise of discipline should be seriously taken notice of because otherwise it would become difficult for the controlling authorities to take duty from their subordinates.

4. As a result of the observation made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss the same.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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