1989 PLP 1019 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Plea that copy of enquiry report was not supplied for purposes of putting a proper defence‑‑Labour Court found that proper opportunity of personal hearing was not given and set aside impugned order with direction that petitioner workman should be temporarily reinstated till employer completed formalities of personal hearing within 15 days and passed any just order‑‑Reinstatement, held, was without anytime limit in circumstances. Latif Saghar for Appellant. Kamal Mansoor Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dated 16‑3‑1985.

2. The brief facts of the case arc that the appellant who was a workman of the respondents, was charge‑sheeted and after due enquiry was removed from service. The appellant gave a grievance notice to the respondents and subsequently filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court. His main grievance was that he was not given a copy of the statement of the finding for the purpose of putting a proper defence. The respondents resisted the application contending that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself. After hearing the parties, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not given proper opportunity of personal hearing, therefore, the learned Presiding Officer set aside the impugned order passed by the respondents against the appellant and directed that he should be temporarily reinstated till the respondents completed the formalities of personal hearing within 15 days and pass any order which will be just and proper.

3. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam, Advocate for the respondents. The impugned order which gave cause of grievance to the appellant has already been set aside by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, as such, the appellant does not appear to have any grievance at present. From the arguments, it appeared that the appellant thinks that he had been reinstated only for 15 days. On reading operative part of the order of the learned Labour Court, it is clear, that the appellant had been reinstated with no time limit, but, the respondents had been directed to complete the personal hearing within 15 days. It is stated from the Bar that the appellant has been reinstated and since 1985, he is working and no fresh order had been passed by the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the appellant that the respondents .are now happy with the appellant. If it be so, the matter ends. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with I the observation, that the appellant is to continue in service till the respondents, if they so desire, pass fresh dismissal order after complying with the directions of the learned Labour Court. The respondents may also consider propriety r‑f passing such order on the basis of enquiry held 3 years earlier, and the fact that no order has been passed within the period fixed by the learned Labour Court. However, that will be considered if and when any order is passed by the respondents which may give cause of grievance to the appellant. A.E./1341 /Lb.S Order accordingly.