1978 PLP 242 (PLC)

Agha Taj Mohammed for Appellant. Respondent in person. Mr. Mohammad Akram respondent was employed as Cooli in C & W Shops, Moghalpura. On 26th June 1972 he was charge‑sheeted alongwith his colleague‑Mohammed Latif on the charge of quarrelling with and giving beating to Mohammad Aslam Assistant Charge-man of Blacksmith Shop. Subsequently an Enquiry Committee was constituted. The respondent participated in the enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Committee after completing the enquiry proceedings recorded the findings of guilty against the respondent. Thereafter the competent authority issued a second show. cause notice to the respondent. He was also supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and findings of the Enquiry Committee. The respondent submitted his explanation to the show‑cause notice. His explanation was considered by the competent authority and he was also given a personal hearing and ultimately the competent authority terminated the respondent from service by an order dated fat September 1972. The respondent there after submitted an appeal, which was rejected. He also submitted a mercy petition, which too was rejected.

2. In November 1973 the respondent filed an application under sec tion 25‑A, of the

1. R. O. 1969 before the Junior Labour Court against the appellant seeking his re‑instatement. He contended in his application that he was not afforded with reasonable opportunity to show cause and that he was absolutely innocent and has been victimized for personal reasons.

3. The appellant resisted the respondent's petition before the learned lower Court and pleaded inter alia that the respondent was removed from service on 1st February 1972 and therefore his petition filed under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. on 12th November 1973 was grossly barred by time. On merits the appellant maintained that the respondent was removed from service alter observing all the formalities prescribed by relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules and his termination was thus valid and in accordance with law.

4. Mohammad Tufail, Mohammed'' Latif Muhammad Hussain and Mohammad Akram respondent appeared as respondent's witnesses before the learned lower Court. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on documents Exhs. R. 1 to R. 14 relating to the enquiry proceedings against the respondent.

5. The learned lower Court after taking into consideration the parties evidence opined that the appellant had failed to produce substantial evidence in the case and that no proper opportunity was given to the respondent to defend himself. It was further concluded by the lower Court that the enquiry proceedings were nullity in the eye of law. Consequently by the order dated 29th June 1974 the learned lower Court accepted the petition of the respondent filed under section 25‑A and directed that he might be re-instated with back benefits.

6. The aforesaid order dated 29th June 1974 of the learned lower Court had been impugned through the present appeal.

7. The verbal as well as documentary evidence produced parties has been carefully considered and minutely analysed. I have also heard the learned counsel for the patties at a considerable length.

8. It is note worthy that in this case the respondent was terminated on fat March 1972 as appears from the contents of Exh. R. 11 the order of termination. His appeal dated 26th September 1972 to the Works Manager was rejected and he was informed ride communication dated 22nd Novem ber 1972. Copy of the communication dated 22nd November 1972 is Exh. R

4. His application (mercy ‑ petition) addressed to Divisional Superin tendent. Workshop, Moghalpura eras rejected by the Divisional Superintendent and information m this behalf was giver; to the respondent, vide letter dated 22nd January 1973 (copy Exh. R

31. The respondent filed application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. in November 1973 before the Junior Labour Court. This means that he filed application under section 25‑A of the

1. R. O. more than a year after his removal from service and about a yea after the rejection of his appeal. In the circumstances his application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. is clearly barred by time. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the respondent before the lower Court and no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the records to explain such an inordinate delay. The appellant has specifically raised the plea of limitation before the learned lower Court but no finding in this behalf has been given by the said Court.

9. In view of the above it is concluded that the application filed by the respondent under section 25‑A was grossly barred by time and deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.

10. As for the merits of the case admittedly charge‑sheet was served on the respondent on 26th June 1972 copy of the charge‑sheet is Exh. R.6. By an order dated 6th July 1972 (Exh. R 6) an enquiry committee was constituted under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1961 and the respondent was required to appear before the Enquiry Committee along with his defence counsel on the date fixed by the committee. Exhs. R 7 and R 8 are the copies of the enquiry proceedings. The contents of the documents suggest that the respondent appeared before the Enquiry Committee. Witnesses were examined in his presence. He also recorded his statement in detail. The proceedings were written in Urdu. Exh. R 13 and R 14 are the copied of the enquiry report and findings of the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee held the respondent guilty of the charges. Through notice (Exh. R 1) the respondent was required to show cause before the competent authority. Report and the finding of Enquiry Committee were attached with the show‑cause notice. The respondent gave his explanation in (copy Exh R 10) to the show‑cause notice. The competent authority after considering the explanation of the respondent and after hearing him by the order (copy Exh RIO dated 1st September 1972 discharged the respondent from service allowing him one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice. From aforesaid circumstances it is sufficiently proved that the termination of the respondent has been ordered in accordance with law after observing the procedure prescribed by the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules. No guaranteed or secured right of the respondent had been violated by discharging him from service. It is none of the functions of the Junior Labour Court to sit as Court of appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer/Enquiry Committee, unless such findings are perverse on the face of it.

11. In the light of what has been said above, we find that the respond ent was terminated by the appellant in accordance with law, and otherwise findings recorded in this behalf by the learned lower Court are erroneous. We would accordingly set aside the impugned order, accept the appeal and dismiss the application filed by the respondent before the lower Court under section 25‑A of the I. R. O.