Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑276 of 1984, heard 04 15th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Charge‑sheet served after one month of alleged misconduct coming to notice of management‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement on grounds that charge‑sheet was time‑barred, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Raes Mushtaque for Appellants,

Amanullah Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th October, 1985.

This appeal is directed against the order of Sind Labour Court No. II, Hyderabad who decided the case on 24‑10‑1984.

2. There is a long story narrated by the respondent. The respondent was working as a Senior Clerk with the appellants organisation and had proceeded on long leave of three months from 6‑6‑1979 to 14‑9‑1979. On the expiry of sanctioned leave he sought further sanction on the ground of illness and so sent telegram to the appellants. On 15‑11‑1979, he was said to have been sent a letter to submit Medical Certificate but the said letter was not delivered by the postal authorities to the respondent. Accordingly charge‑sheet was issued to the respondent on 27‑11‑1979 under the caption of "unauthorised absence", and an ex parte enquiry was conducted and finally he was removed from the service by order, dated 16‑4‑1980. This was assailed in the Labour Court previously and the learned predecessor of the present Presiding Officer of the said Labour Court granted the petition of the respondent.

It was ordered that the respondent be re‑instated but the appellants were given an option to hold a fresh enquiry provided that the appellants have to serve the charge‑sheet in accordance with law and within stipulated period. It was further ordered that if the enquiry will not be held within the period, then, the respondent be re‑instated with full back benefits. It appears that after this order the respondent was reinstated by the appellants. Charge‑sheet, dated 27‑11‑1979 was served on the respondent on 26‑3‑1983. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by Mr. Abbas The result of which was that he was removed again from service by order, dated 4‑6‑1983. Then again the grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court.

3. The respondent examined himself in support of his case while Messrs Qamaruddin and Abbasi were tendered in evidence on behalf of the appellants.

4. The first contention raised in this appeal is that the charge‑sheet was not served on the respondent within the stipulated period of one month. According to Mr. Amanullah Qureshi the charge‑sheet was actually served on the respondent on 26‑3‑1983 and so the enquiry made by the appellant is contrary to the directions of the Labour Court, Consequently the enquiry was not completed within three months according to the orders of the Labour Court. The Labour Court initially passed the order on 31‑1‑1983. Since there was no proper compliance of the order of the learned Labour Court, it was argued that the respondent would be entitled to the reinstatement with full back benefits. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had proceeded on sanctioned leave and if he had not returned and his absence was deemed if unauthorized, a charge‑sheet or any letter to this fact should have been sent to his home address and if the same was returned undelivered, some other efforts should have been made to serve the respondent. The record of this case, however, shows that such an effort was never made. Not only this, but the respondent himself had reported for duty on 27‑12‑1981. The charge‑sheet was not attempted to be served upon the respondent. According to the record of this case this so‑called charge‑sheet was served on the respondent on 26‑3‑1983 which is definitely highly belated and hopelessly time‑barred. In view of the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 31‑1‑1983, the respondent would be entitled to re‑instatement with effect from 27‑12‑1981.

5. Mr. Raes Mushtaque, the learned counsel for the appellants objected to the grant of back benefits but his objections were turned down by the learned Labour Court and I find rightly so because by the previous order of the learned predecessor of the present Presiding Officer, the reinstatement was from 27‑12‑1981 with full back benefits and these benefits could not be curtailed in this instant case and, therefore, the Labour Court gave back benefits from 27‑12‑1981. I would rather agree with the order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal accordingly.

A.E 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.