1984 PLP 1152 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑‑ Work‑charged employee ‑ Entitled to wages of day on which work done‑Appointment made on consolidated monthly salary Cannot be treated as work charged. Musharraf Hussain for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th April, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 17th July, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondents were ordered to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondents were junior clerks. They were employed on 1st February, 1979 and 22nd May, 1978, respectively. Their services were terminated with effect from 3rd March, 1980. The case of the appellant is that the respondents were work‑charged employees, therefore, could be terminated at any tune. In reply to the grievance notice it was said on behalf of the appellant that the respondents were work‑charged employees and further they were not enjoying good reputation. The learned trial Judge has held that the reason given in the letters of termination that the respondents were not enjoying good reputation meant that they were corrupt, therefore, without charge‑sheeting and making enquiry against them, their services could not be terminated. The finding of the learned trial Judge does not appear to be unjustified. Even this is in correct that the respondents were work‑charged employees. In the appoint ment letters it is mentioned that their consolidated pay was Rs. 377 per mensem. Work‑charged employees are those who are given remunerations for the days they work. They are not entitled to the wages of the days on which they do not work. But in the case of the respondents the consolidated pay of Rs. 377 was fixed which clearly shows that they were entitled to that pay and the pay of the weekly holidays could not be deducted nor was ever deducted. Since their posts continued for, more than nine months and they remained appointed on those posts, the posts were permanent and the respondents on the expiry of the probationary period of three months became permanent. Since they were stigmatized by making an allegation against them that they were not commanding good reputation, they could not be removed from service without being charge‑sheet and an enquiry held against them. Their removal, therefore, amounts to dismissal. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in directing their reinstatement in service.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has during arguments requested that the appellant be allowed to charge‑sheet and make enquiry against the respondents, since previously they were terminated without observing the provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. I am affraid now it is too late for the appellant to charge‑sheet the respondents. According to Standing Order 15 (4) charge‑sheet is to be given within one month of the commission of misconduct or from the date of knowledge of the misconduct. Such a request, therefore; cannot be acceded to.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal, which is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.