1995 PLP 391 (PLC)

Asmat Kamal for Petitioner. Asadullah Siddiqui for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 30‑9‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the application for ad interim injunction brought by the petitioner was dismissed, is wrong and improper.

2. The petitioner has been charge‑sheeted for the commission of misconduct and after completing the inquiry final show‑cause notice has been served upon him. He has brought an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on the ground that since the charge‑sheet is time‑barred, he cannot be, in pursuant to the said charge‑sheet, dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1979 PLC 446 and 1981 PLC 209 and has argued that it is not necessary that first of all an employee should be removed from service and only after that he can challenge the said order. The first mentioned ruling is on the point of workman. On such point rulings are not very much helpful because they are based upon the evidence produced in the particular case from which they arose. On the basis of the evidence produced in the case it was held that the worker concerned was covered by the definition of workman. The second mentioned ruling is not germane to the facts of the present case. The management had denied the number of employees being more than nineteen. The worker had relied upon the attendance register in the custody of the management. It was held that the worker was required to call for the register from the management, failing which he had failed to establish his assertion.

3. The petitioner is a Field Supervisor and in respect of his duties an uncertified copy of the description of his duties has been brought on the record. It does not bear " the signatures of any authority. Uncertified or photostat copies may be sufficient for considering an application for interim stay but such documents must show that they were issued by the competent Authority. No doubt, the last clause shows that it was within the duties of the petitioner to prepare and maintain showing reports and maintain distribution and procurement registers but since the document does not appear to bearing the signatures of any Authorised Officer, at this stage it is not helpful to the petitioner. Even if it be said that he is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the requirement of Standing Order 15(4) is not only this that in all cases the misconduct should be brought to the notice of worker concerned within thirty days of the commission of misconduct but in cases where charge‑sheet is given within thirty days of the knowledge of commission of misconduct, the charge‑sheet can be said to be within time. No copy of the evidence produced during the inquiry has been brought on the record, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the case made against the petitioner is doubtful. It is thus difficult to say that he has a prima facie case at this stage.

4. In the circumstances discussed above the stay application has been rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. The revision fails and is dismissed. A.E./456/Lb.P Revision dismissed.