1977 PLP 568 (PLC)

‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Defence opportunity‑‑Accused worker in Jail‑ Charged for absence without leave‑Facts within notice of Management as accused sending leave application from Jail‑Charge‑sheet sent at his home address‑No reply received, hence ex pane inquiry held‑Manage ment, in circumstances, must have served charge‑sheet in Jail‑Accused workman not in a position to offer defence‑No defence opportunity in circumstances, held, given hence dismissal order based upon such inquiry, held, illegal. Mirza Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner. Waseem Ahmad Faroogi for Respondents. The petitioner, Arshad Mahmood was, employed a3 a worker in the Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala. He was dismissed from service on 7‑4‑76 on the charges of absence without leave for more than ten days and habitual absence without leave. He challenged the order of dismissal in this petition, filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The petitioner was arrested in a criminal case on Z‑3‑

76. Mr. Muhammad Idrees, the General Secretary of the Trade Union in the establish ment went to see him in jail on 8‑3-76 and obtained a leave application from him. The application disclosed the factum of his arrest and leave was applied with effect from 2‑3‑76 till his release on bail. It appears that no action was taken on this leave application. On 10-3-76, the Labour officer, issued a charge‑sheet (Exh. D‑1) to the petitioner to the effect that he was absent for 21 days, the Labour Officer issued another charge‑sheet to the effect that the petitioner was absent for more than ten days with effect from 2‑3‑

76. Both these charge‑sheets were sent at his home address. No reply was received. Mr. Akbar Abbas was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After taking ex parte proceeding, he found the petitioner guilty of both the charges. No second show‑cause notice was served and on 7‑4‑76, a dismissal order was passed.

3. Admittedly, it was within the knowledge of the Management that the petitioner was in jail. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the Management to serve the charge‑sheet on the petitioner in jail. Obviously, he had no information about the inquiry. He was not in a position to offer any defence. As opportunity of defence was not given to him, therefore, the dismissal order is illegal.

4. The Labour Officer was not competent to issue any charge sheet or to appoint an Inquiry Officer. Under section 2(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the Mills Manager was employer and he was alone competent to initiate the inquiry proceedings. As the inquiry proceedings were not initiated by him, therefore, the proceedings are illegal.

5. For the above reasons the petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with back benefits.