Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.D‑19 of 1983, decided on 17th March, 1987.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Dismissal of bank employee for misconduct‑‑Grievance petition of employee dismissed by Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Knowledge of date of misconduct, a question of fact‑‑Plea in constitutional petition that notice of misconduct issued to employee/ petitioner was time‑barred repelled‑ Question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law but question as to the date of misconduct, coming to knowledge of employer, held, was a question of fact‑‑Such question having been dealt with by Labour Court and Appellate Labour Tribunal in their elaborate decisions could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction in absence of misreading of evidence or non‑examination thereof judiciously‑‑Finding of Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction could not be lightly interfered with on question of fact or even of law.

Allah Bachayo v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1981 P L C 277; Naeem Hasan v. Fourth Sind Labour Court and 2 others 1984 P L C 50 and Dr. Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1478 ref.

Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 rel.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Misconduct of employee proved by concurrent findings of two Courts below‑‑Finding of such misconduct not challenged in constitutional petition‑‑Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed in circumstances.

Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.

Khalid Javed for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th March, 1987.

‑‑The petitioner was a Messenger working with the Habib Bank Limited at Domanwah Road Branch, Hyderabad. On 23‑9‑1978 he is alleged to have committed misconduct, whereupon he was charge‑sheeted by respondent No.2. Enquiry was held and he was found guilty. He was thus dismissed from service by order, dated 18‑2‑1980 passed by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner thereupon filed a departmental appeal. During its pendency, however, he gave grievance notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and filed a petition under section 25‑A with respondent No.4 who dismissed the same by his order, dated 29th March, 1981. The petitioner thereupon filed appeal against the said order before respondent No.3, but his appeal was also dismissed. Ultimately, he filed the above petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.

2. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the notice of misconduct issued to the petitioner is time‑barred. According to him the petitioner was informed in writing of the alleged misconduct on 29‑10‑1978 whereas he should have been informed within one month from the date of such misconduct i.e. latest by 22nd October, 1978, as admittedly the misconduct was committed by the petitioner on 23‑9‑1978. Reliance is placed by him on Standing Order 15(4) of West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under:‑‑

"No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and, the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman:

Provided that the workman proceeded against may, if he so desires for his assistance in the enquiry, nominate and workman employed in that establishment and the employer shall allow the workman so nominated to be present in the enquiry to assist the workman proceeded against and shall not deduct his wages if the enquiry is held during his duty hours."

3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand submitted that the question as to when the misconduct come to the knowledge of the employer is a question of fact and is not open to scrutiny by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed by him on a number of cases reported as Allah Bachayo v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1981 P L C 277, Naeem Hasan v. Fourth Sind Labour Court and 2 others 1984 P L C 50 and Dr. Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1478.

5. The question of limitation, in our view, is mixed question of fact and law, but the question as to the date of the misconduct coming to the knowledge of the employer is a question of fact. This question seems to have been dealt with by the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Tribunal in their elaborate decisions. In fact the Tribunal took pains to record the evidence of the respondent No.2 on this point and we see no reason to interfere with that finding, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there is misreading of evidence by the Tribunal or that the evidence has not been examined judiciously. The findings of a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be lightly interfered with on question of fact or even of law. In this respect, we may refer to the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139. The constitutional jurisdiction is extraordinary and equitable in nature. In our view, the decision of the learned Tribunal does not call for interference in our constitutional jurisdiction.

5. It is also noticeable that the misconduct has been proved and there is a concurrent finding on the petitioner's misconduct by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the two Courts below. In fact, the finding as to commission of misconduct has not even been challenged r, before us on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

A.A. /J‑10/ K

Petition 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.