Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ ‑Petition No. 1362 of 1985, decided on 2nd December, 1986.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)----
‑‑‑S.0.15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑ Dismissal of employee for misconduct‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Employee not afforded adequate opportunity to appear and lead evidence in defence‑ Order of re‑instatement maintained‑‑Employer however put at liberty to proceed against employee after hearing him and affording him adequate opportunity to produce evidence in defence.
Javed Altaf with Khurshid Ahmad Mian for Petitioner.
Zafar Malik for Respondent No.l.
Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1986.
This Constitutional petition is directed against order, dated 24‑3‑1985 of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby, he re‑instated Saeed Hassan respondent in service without back benefits. In addition, he observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to finalise his departmental action against the respondent.
2. Saeed Hassan respondent was employed as Typist in the Packages Ltd., Lahore. He was charge sheeted on 14‑6‑1983 for misconduct on the ground that he deliberately submitted incorrect claim for overtime and obtained money, therefor. The respondent denied the charge. As a result of the inquiry instituted against him he was on 30‑10‑1983 dismissed from service by the petitioner. The respondent challenged his order of dismissal from service before the Punjab Labour Court and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide impugned order found that he had by claiming overtime in excess of the time actually spent by him only violated the relevant rules. He accordingly set aside the order of his dismissal and re‑instated him in service without back benefits, as in his opinion, respondent's re‑instatement in service was on technical ground. It was further observed in the impugned order that the petitioner would be at liberty to take departmental action against the respondent in the light of the observations contained in his order. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of this petition whereas respondent No.l assailed the same in appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Inquiry Officer held Saeed Hassan respondent guilty of misconducts as he wrongly claimed compensation for overtime duties performed by him. The finding of the learned Presiding Officer that respondent No.l only disobeyed the rules of the company and was not liable to dismissal from service was wrong.
4. Mr. Zafar Malik, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that respondent No.l was condemned unheard. He was provided only few hours to produce his defence. It was further contended that the inquiry conducted against him was one sided. The evidence on record did not establish that the respondent committed misconduct entailing punishment of dismissal from service. Neither the person who maintained the relevant record was produced before the Enquiry Officer nor the officers who endorsed the claim of the respondent and under whose orders the respondent worked overtime were summoned to prove that he had lodged false claim.
It was pointed out that respondent's appeal against the impugned order has been accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Not only the order re‑instating the respondent has been confirmed but also the finding of the learned Labour Court that the respondent was re‑instated on technical ground and not entitled to back benefits was set aside. This submission of learned counsel for the respondent has not been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file with their assistance. The inquiry proceedings remained pending for some period but prosecution evidence was recorded on 8‑8‑1983. Saeed Hassan respondent was directed to produce his evidence in defence on the next date viz. 9‑8‑1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the respondent remained on duty on 9‑8‑1983, the Enquiry Officer did not summon him and proceeded to close his evidence on the same day.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was unable to refute the contention that the respondent was not afforded adequate opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer and lead evidence in defence. The impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer had been examined in appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and finding of the learned Presiding Officer that the respondent was not entitled to back benefits on account of his re‑instatement on technical ground has been set aside.
Though I do not agree with the finding of the Labour Court that the allegations against the respondent even if proved do no, constitute misconduct within the meaning of S.0.15(3) (b) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 yet I maintain the impugned order setting aside respondent's dismissal from service on the ground that he was not afforded adequate opportunity to appear and lead evidence in defence.
6. In the result this petition is dismissed with an observation that in case the petitioner intends to proceed against the respondent, her shall be heard and afforded adequate opportunity to produce in evidence defence.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.Y.H/P‑1/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer