1982 PLP 923 (PLC(CS))

Union Steel Mills Ltd. v. Nadir Khan 198,0 P L C 292 distinguished. Samiullah Khan for Appellants. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1981 The respondent, who' was employed as a Turner in the appellant company since the past 9 years, was dismissed from service with effect from 26th November, 1979, on the charges, firstly, that he reported late for his duties by 27 minutes on 8th August, 1979, and secondly, when questioned about his coming late, he misbehaved. It was also added in the charge‑sheet, seemingly as an after thought, that the 'respondent was a habitual late comer. The dismissal orders explicitly state that they are based on the report of the Enquiry Officer who had found both the charges established against the respondent. The respondent challenged his dismissal orders by way of a grievance petition before the learned Vlth Labour Court, which has set aside the dismissal orders and directed the appellant company to reinstate the respondent in service with full back benefits. The appellant company feeling aggrieved by this decision has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. As already pointed out the two charges against the respondent were of late attendance and misbehaviour and the dismissal orders are based on the view that both these charges had been established according to the report of the Enquiry Officer. The relevant part of the dismissal orders reads as follows:‑ "We have carefully gone through the records of the enquiry and findings of the Inquiry officer and concure in his findings that on the evidence recorded at the enquiry both the charges levelled against you have been proved." 3. 1 regret having to observe that the above assertions in the dismissal orders are not only erroneous but are suggestive of mala fides and improper intention. A bare perusal of the Enquiry officer's report shows that the charge regarding misconduct has not been established and in fact there was no evidence in support thereof. As regards the charge of late coming, there was only evidence in the domestic enquiry regarding the respondent coming late on 8th August, 1979. There was thus no evidence in the domestic enquiry either to show that the respondent was habitual late comer or that he had misbehaved or misconducted himself. No doubt, in the reply statement, the appellant company had produced a summary of the service record of the respondent which shows that from 1971 to 1979, he had earned reports of habitual late attendance, but neither this record was produced in the domestic enquiry against the respondent nor the dates on which he is said to have attended late were stated. I am, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that there was no material on the record in the domestic enquiry on the basis of which the respondent could have been dismissed.

4. It was, however, contended by Mr. Samiullah Khan the learned counsel for the appellant company, that the grievance petition preferred by the respondent was premature and on that account it was not main?tainable. This argument is grounded in the fact that whereas the dis?missal orders in respect of the respondent were served upon him on l1th February, 1980, the grievance notice upon the employer was servos by him on 29th January, 1980, before the service of dismissal orders on him. In support of his contention that the grievance of the respondent can be said to have arisen only upon the service on him of the dismissal orders, Mr. Samiullah Khan relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Union Steel Mills Ltd. v. Nadir Khan (1980 P L C 292). The facts of the report?ed case, however, are totally different. In that case, the workman, was gate‑stopped and thereafter a domestic enquiry was held against him which culminated in the orders of his dismissal. It was held that the limitation, in the circumstances, ran not from the date of the gate stoppage but from the date of dismissal orders served upon the workman. In that case the grievance of the workman was against the dismissal orders and not the gate stoppage because he had participated in the domestic enquiry which was held against him subsequent to the gate stoppage. In the instant case, although the orders of the dismissal of the respondent were served on him on 11th February, 1980, the said orders were dated 26th November, 1979. It was obviously in pursuance of these orders of 4 dismissal that be was gate‑stopped on 29th January, 1980. 1 am accor?dingly of the view that the grievence notice in the circumstances was quite valid and no fault could be found with it.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, 1 would dismiss the appeal in limine.