Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-13 of 1984, heard on 23rd July, 1985.

---S. 25-A--Grievance petition--Domestic enquiry, validity of--Employment in double employment--Show-cause notice to employee after preliminary enquiry by employer--Show-cause notice, held, was within time and enquiry was validly conducted in circumstances.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--

--S. 0. 15 (3) (b)--Employee served with show-cause notice of absence and administered warning--Subsequent show-cause notice pertaining to dishonesty, fraud and double employment--Maxim that the man should be vexed over twice", held, would not apply in circumstances

(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--

--S.O. 15(3)(b)--Word "misconduct", meaning of--Theft, fraud dishonesty in connection with employer's business and property, held was act of misconduct--Employee by obtaining employment simultaneously with two establishments, by obtaining leave on frivolous and false ground for working with other establishment played fraud with employer--employee also occasioned monetary loss to employer by obtaining leave on full play which amounted to dishonesty and fraud.

--S. 25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15(3)(b)--Detested enquiry against employee--Employee admitting misconduct and requiting for pardoning --There was, held, no need to hold further equity Employer, however, afforded opportunity to employee to defend charges against him--Employee again confessing misconduct in statement before Enquiry Officer and signing same--Such statement and signatures denied by employee before Labour Court--Labour Court after compares)-n of signatures came to conclusion that signatures were of employ, Confession of misconduct by employee proved in circumstances.

---S. 25-A--Dismissal order of employee--Recommendation by competent authority to Managing Director for dismissal of employee-, such recommendation approved by General Manager and Managing Direct Dismissal of employee, held, to be in proper order and according, legal requirement--Interference by Labour Appellate Tribunal with regard to such proper order of dismissal refused in circumstances.

Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant.

S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1985.

The decision of Labour Court No. II, Karachi, was announced on 3-1-1983, whereby he had dismissed the grievance petition of appellant. This is an appeal against the said order of the Labour Court.

2. Briefly recounting the allegations against the appellant Khista Muhammad are that he was a permanent workman as Press Operator with effect from 1973. He remained absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days and a notice was given to him on 21-12-1981, which was subsequently closed by administering the warning to him. Something more was disclosed against the appellant and as such a show-cause notice was given to him on 9-9-1981. The show-cause notice indicated that the appellant fraudulently and dishonestly worked simultaneously as a Seaman with 'Al-abedin and M.V. Tarbella. He worked as a Seaman from 1-9-1981 to 6-12-1981. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 24-10-1982.

3. While, the stand taken by the management is that the application under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, is not maintainable. Further, it was maintained by the management that the appellant was charged for deliberately, wilfully and fraudulently carrying on double employment simultaneously with the respondents as well as Pakistan National Shipping Corporation on M.V. Tarbela. The appellant has submitted his explanation, dated 15-9-1982 categorically admitting his guilt and asked the respondents to forgive but in view of the gravity of the misconduct, the respondents decided to hold a domestic enquiry and the enquiry was fair and proper. In the Labour Court, the affidavit of the appellant was filed and he was cross-examined. While the affidavit of Harold A. Meik was filed by the respondents and he was also cross-examined. The appeal was heard by this Tribunal.

4. The first question was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry was time-barred inasmuch as on 4-8-1982, respondents had come to know regarding the double employment of the appellant. This argument was repelled by the learned counsel of the other side that the respondents though received the information on 4-8-1982, yet the accurate information regarding the employment of the appellant with Messrs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation was made available to the respondents and an officer of the respondents was deputed to investigate the matter, who after investigation submitted a report, dated 17-8-1982 confirming that the appellant was an employee of Messrs P. N. S. C. and had sailed on P.N. S. C. Vessels on two different occasions after obtaining long leaves from the respondents on fictitious and false grounds. Therefore, the right date is to be counted from 17-8-1982 and the show-cause notice, dated 9-9-1982 was within time. This contention and assertion was accepted by the learned Labour Court and there is no ground to disbelieve that the accurate information was obtained by the respondents on 17-8-1982. The contention, therefore, has no force.

5. The next contention was that by administering the punishment of warning to the appellant, therefore, he could not be doubly punished. The second show-cause notice pertained to dishonesty and fraud and double employment, which was not shown in the first show-cause notice where the warning was administered. The legal Maxim does not apply. Clause (3) of Standing Order 15 defines the acts and omissions, which amount to misconduct. According to sub-clause (b) of clause (3), theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the employer's business and property is an act of misconduct. The appellant by obtaining employment simultaneously with Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and for obtaining leave on frivolous and false grounds for working as Seaman in P. N. S. C. Vessels played a fraud with the respondents and also occasioned monetary losses to the respondents inasmuch as according to the cross-examination of the respondents' witness, some of the leave during the period in dispute was on full pay and this amounts to dishonesty and fraud.

6. In the enquiry itself, the appellant requested for pardoning. Hence, there was no need to hold any further enquiry but the respondents in order to comply with the requirements of Law afforded opportunity to the appellant. The appellant, however, again confessed his guilt in the ambiguous word and in the circumstances it was hardly any need for the Enquiry Officer to examine any witness has been the charge/ allegations. Annexure Ft to the reply disowned by the appellant and he denied his signatures. The learned Labour Court has compared the signatures on Annexure 'F' with the signatures on Annexure 'A', 'B' and 'C' and came to the conclusion that the signatures are of the appellant. His confession is, therefore, proved.

7. The next contention of the appellant was that the dismissal order was not signed by the competent authority. In this respect, Annexure IN' is the recommendations made by the Senior Manager (Industrial Relations) of the respondents to the Managing Director for dismissal of E the appellant from the service. The Annexure 'M-1' is the pro forma which contained the approval of the General Manager (Technical) and the Managing Director. This proves that the dismissal was in proper order.

8. After having heard the various arguments and perused the record, I am satisfied that the impugned order is proper and cannot be interfered with, and, therefore, I dismiss this appeal.

1. A.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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