1977 PLP 609 (PLC)

S. 25‑A‑Restoration of increment‑Workman charge‑sheeted for misconduct but despite opportunity afforded to him failing to participate in enquiry proceedings‑Charge having proved, Manage ment ordering punishment of Stoppage of increment for one year --Workman found to have been afforded reasonable opportunity to show cause‑Procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance not required to by observed for awarding punishment of stoppage of increment‑No right guaranteed to petitioner by or under any law violated in circumstances of case‑Application :under S. 25‑A dismissed. Akbar Ali petitioner, was employed as Assistant Electrician in the establishment of the M/s. Grand Battries, Multan Road, Lahore. He was charged for misconduct and ultimately by the order of the employer, dated 6thMay, 1975 was awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with effect from Ist May. 1975. The petitioner after serving grievance notice on the respondent filed application under section 25‑A of the Industrial' Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking a direction against the respondent that he should not stop his increment as ordered by him. It has been pleaded in the application that the petitioner was not afforded opportuni ty to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to participate in the enquiry proceedings and that order of stoppage of increment was illegally passed in an ex parte manner. 2. The respondent resisted the petition and pleaded inter alia that no right guaranteed to the petitioner under any law, settlement or award had been denied to him and therefore his application was not competent. It has also been maintained by the respondent that the petitioner intentionally and deliberately avoided to appear before the Enquiry Officer on more than one occasion on false pretexts. He was duly punished in accordance with law. The petitioner has examined P. W. 1 Nasar‑ud‑Din, P. W. 2 Muhammad Din and the petitioner himself has come into the witness‑box as P. W. 3. P. W. 1 stated that no misconduct was committed by the petitioner. P. W. 2 stated that within his knowledge no enquiry was held against the petitioner. P. W. 3 Akbar Ali stated that he never committed the misconduct for which he has been punished. He received notice of the enquiry for 7th March 1975, but he was ill on 7th day of March 1975. He also stated that he received an other notice for enquiry for 12th March 1975 but this was received by him on 17th March 1975. He admitted having received the charge‑sheet and having submitted the reply to the same. 3. In rebuttal Masood Ahmed, Establishment Incharge of the factory stated that charge‑sheet Exh. R. W. 1/1 was served on the petitioner. He submitted reply Exh. R. W. 1/2 to the charge‑sheet. Subsequently notice of enquiry Exh. R. W. 1/3 was served on the petitioner. He did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Copy of the enquiry proceedings is Exh. R. W. 1/4 (pages 1 to 12). Further according to Masood Ahmed by the order, dated 6th May, 1975 (Exh. R. W. 1/2) petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for one year. This witness repudiated the suggestion that the enquiry proceedings were bogus. 4. The respondent has also examined R. W. 2 Mr. Ikram‑ul‑Haque, who conducted the enquiry in the case. He has stated that he sent intima tions through special messengers whose names are disclosed in the enquiry proceedings to the petitioner for attending the enquiry but the petitioner failed to do so. 5. From the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, it is established that the petitioner was duly charge‑sheeted for, misconduct. He replied to the charge‑sheet. After considering his reply the employer ordered the enquiry. Mr. Ikram‑Ul‑Haque was appointed the Enquiry Officer. Repeated efforts were made to obtain the participation of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings which were adjourned to several dates but the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer although he used to perform his duties in the factory. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge. The employer awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year to the petitioner. 6. It is also noteworthy that in this case punishment of stoppage of increment for one year has been awarded to the petitioner. The procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15 (4) of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is required to be observed in cases of dismissal. No such procedure is prescribed for awarding the punishment, of stoppage of increment. In the circumstances no right guaranteed to the petitioner by or under any law has been violated. The Employer, however, before awarding the punishment of stoppage of increment has afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and in this manner he has duly taken care of the principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. 7. In the light of what has been said above we find no merit in the application of the petitioner which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.