1983 PLP 679 (PLC(CS))

This appeal arises from the decision dated 10th July, 1481 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.

2. The respondent was at the time of his termination Assistant Accounts Officer. He was suspended on 26th January, 1980. On 1st March, 1980 he was served with a charge-sheet by Mr. Abdullah Yousaf. He replied to the charge-sheet. His reply was not considered satisfactory and so an enquiry was held, which culminated in his termination from service.

3. Before the lower Court and before me the objection has been raised that the respondent was not a workman and, therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. In this respect the respondent appearing as his own witness deposed that he used to make entries in the main ledger, general ledger and had been preparing vouchers and cheques him self. He further said that he had no authority to recruit or punish any employee and that he was answerable to the Divisional Nlanager and the District Manager. On behalf of the appellants Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmad, Divisional Manager was examined as D. W. 1. who deposed that the respondent was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in N P S-16 and once had officiated as District and Divisional Manager and in that capacity he had issued charge-sheets to Sardar Muhammad and Gulzar Ahmad. Issuance of charge-sheets to Sardar Muhammad and Gulzar Ahmad is admitted by the respondent, but this is also admitted that the persons charge-sheeted by the respondent were re-instated on the ground that , the respondent was not competent to issue the charge-sheets. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, has said that the said case is sub judice before the High Court in a writ petition. Even if it is said that the respondent issued charge-sheets to Sardar Muhammad and Gulzar Ahmad, this he did while officiating as District and Divisional Manager and not as Assistant Accounts Officer. As Assistant Accounts Officer, he had been, as stated by him, making entries with his own hands in the main ledger, general ledger and had been preparing vouchers and cheques. He had no authority to recruit or punish any employee. This portion of his evidence stands unrebutted. Simply because he was designated as Assistant Accounts Officer in N P S-16 is not sufficient to oust him from the definition of workman when he had no power of hire and fire and to supervise or manage any establishment. Since his main A duties were to make entries in the ledger and to prepare vouchers and cheques, apparently his duties were clerical. According to the evidence on the record, the Labour Court was justified in holding that the respondent was covered by the definition of workman. 1, therefore, overrule the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this respect.

4. Charge-sheet was issued to the respondent by the Finance Director and not by the Managing Director, who alone was the employer and authorised to punish him. D. W. 1 admitted that after charge-sheeting the respondent no enquiry was held, nor any opportunity was given to the respondent to produce defence. It is thus clear that the provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) were not followed. Before a person is dismissed for any misconduct, it is necessary to charge-sheet him and to hold an enquiry giving him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his defence. Since in the present case, it was not done, the order of dismissal is bad in law and cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re-instatement of the respondent without back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.