1978 PLP 278 (PLC)

‑‑ S. O. 15(4)‑Misconduct‑Absence from duty‑Accused arrested and to Jail‑Charge‑sheet sent at home address received back with remarks of postman that he was in Jail‑Enquiry, held, ex parte parse‑Despite knowledge of accused being in Jail ex parte inquiry in circumstances, held, in violation of S. O. 15(4)‑Absence being for reasons beyond control of accused dismissal set aside. Anwar All Chaudhry for Appellant Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th January 1977. This is an appeal against the decision dated, 23‑8‑1916 of Punjab Labour Court, No. 3, Lyallpur.

2. Allah Ditta, respondent was employed as a worker in the Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala. He was arrested in a criminal case on 2‑3‑1976 and was released on bail on 29‑3‑1976. For that reason he was unable to attend to his duties during that period. On 13‑3‑1976 the Time Office made a report that the respondent was absent from duty without leave for more than ton days. The Labour Officer framed a charge‑sheet and sent it to the respondent at his home address. The charge‑sheet could not be received by, the respondent as he was in Jail. The report of the postman on the envelop Exh D.6 is to the effect that he was in Jail. In spite of the report the Mills Manager decided to hold an inquiry against the respondent and in that connection appointed an Inquiry Officer, who hold an ex parts inquiry against the respondent and found him guilty on the basis of the inquiry report, the respondent was dismissed from service on 30‑3‑1976. He challenged the order of his dismissal before the Labour Court by way of a petition under section 25 A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969., The learned Labour Court accepted the petition and ordered his re‑instatement with back benefits vide decision under appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Crescent Jute Products Ltd., through Manager Director appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. From the perusal of the record I find that the postman clearly made a report on the envelop Exh. D‑6 that the respondent was in Jail and that is why it was not received. I also find from the evidence of D. W. Waseem A. Farooqi that it was within his knowledge that the respondent was in Jail and that no notice of charge‑sheet was sent to him at the jail address. Ho however, misstated facts by stating that the report of the postman wag that the respondent had refused to accept service of the charge‑sheet. From the above it is clear that whole inquiry was in violation of Standing Order 15(4) as no opportunity was given to the respondent to explain the circumstances alleged against him. In any case his absence from duty was due to circumstances beyond his control because he was under arrest in jail.

5. In view of the above I uphold the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.