1988 PLP 71 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Charge‑sheet‑‑A vague charge‑sheet, held, caused immense prejudice to an accused person and any superstructure raised on such a charge‑sheet would fall to ground. S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. G. P. Soomro for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th April, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against impugned order, dated 28‑9‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1 Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the appellant, but did not allow the back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent worker of the respondent Corporation since 1983 and was working as Senior Mechanic, Grade 9 at North Karachi Depot. It was claimed by the appellant that on account of some personal grudge and enmity with one Abdul Majeed, Foreman of the workshop a complaint of mis-behaviour and abusing was made against him and on this basis he was issued a charge‑sheet to which he replied. Thereafter one by one the enquiry officers were appointed by the respondent Corporation. The domestic enquiry conducted by Muhammad Kasem was quite unfair, unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice as he has committed several irregularities in the domestic enquiry. However, the appellant was dismissed from service on 9‑1‑1984 and thereafter he filed grievance petition.

3. The case of the respondent was that the Foreman had no grudge with the appellant on 11‑3‑1983 at 0020 hours appellant used absence language and misbehaved with the Foreman, Abdul Majeed who had reported the matter and thereafter the appellant was charge -sheeted and as the reply of the appellant to this charge‑sheet was found not satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held and then the appellant was properly afforded opportunity to defend himself, resulting in his dismissal from service. Therefore, he could not maintain his grievance petition.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. The learned Labour Court, then allowed the reinstatement of the appellant, but 'without back benefits. Hence this appeal for the payment of back benefits.

5. I have heard Mr. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. G. M. Soomro, the learned representative for the appellant and one respondent Corporation and also have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact on record that the statement of the witness of the respondent Corporation before the enquiry officer was quite inconsistent with the allegations made in the charge‑sheet. Now .here the complainant has stated that the appellant misbehaved with the foreman. Even in the complaint Exbt. R‑1/5 the alleged mis-behaviour was not mentioned As per complainant himself at the relevant time, one Haji Muhammad was present and though he was produced as defence witness, the respondent corporation could not cross‑examine Haji Muhammad and he had very frankly deposed that the appellant did not misbehave the said Foreman further as regards the second charge that the A relevant page from the Attendance Register was un-authorised removed by the appellant, there is no evidence on record to conduct the appellant with this false allegation. Even in the enquiry proceedings nothing has been specifically mentioned about the actual language which was alleged to have been used by the appellant. A vague charge‑sheet causes immense prejudice to an accused person and any superstructure raised on such a charge‑sheet falls to the ground. I, therefore, find no force in the contention of Mr. G. B. Soomro in support of his case. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order as regards to the orders of reinstatement of the appellant to the respondent Corporation is concerned. But, no regards the payment of back benefits, in view of the facts and circumstances of the‑ case. I am of the view that the charge of misconduct against the appellant could not be proved and there is also nothing on record to show that during the period of unemployment, the appellant had been gainfully employed; therefore at least to be awarded fifty per cent back benefits.

6. For the reason stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order only with regard to the issue of the payment of back D benefits. I would allow the appeal for payment of back benefits. The result is that the appellant be reinstated in service with fifty per cent back benefits forthwith. M.Y.H./1011/Lb.S