1989 PLP 884 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Ss. 25-A, 30 & 38(3)--Civil Procedure Code; (V of 1908), S. 35-A--Special costs--Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 contains no provision for infliction of special costs--Order of Labour Court to the extent of special costs was vacated by Appellate Tribunal. Ch. Mahboob Ahmad for Appellants. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 13th December, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 20-9-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits and special costs of Rs.1,000 have been awarded to him.

2. The allegations for which the respondent was removed from service were that a list of defaulters who had been using water illegally was handed over to the respondent on 11-11-1982 for onward transmission but he failed to send the same and kept the same in his drawer of the table from where it was recovered on 18-11-1982; that he remained absent from duty from 16-11-1982 to 21-11-1982 without permission and that he attended the office late for seven days in June, 1982, ten days. in July, 1982, eight days in August, 1982 three days in September, 1982, three days in October, 1982 and five days in November, 1982. So far as the first charge is concerned, admittedly 12-11-1982 was a Friday and from 13-11-1982 the respondent had proceeded on leave and resumed duty on 22-11-1982. Since after the date of delivery of the list of defaulters the respondent resumed duty on 21-11-1982, therefore, it cannot be said that he neglected his duty or disobeyed the order of his superiors. He may have forwarded the list on or soon after 22-11-1982 but before that the same was recovered from his drawer and he ceased to be in possession of it thereafter. So this allegation does not amount to misconduct. No doubt, the respondent had taken leave upto 16-11-1982 and thereafter upto 21-11-1982 was absent without leave, but since the period fell short of eleven days it too did not amount to misconduct. No doubt the respondent is shown to have attended the office late on some dates from June to November as mentioned above but the charge is not that he was a habitual late comer, therefore, this allegation also does not amount to misconduct. There should have been clear cut allegation that he was in the habit of coming late. Even if it be said that there was an allegation of habitual late coming, since the appellant was condemned unheared, the learned lower Court rightly set aside the order, of removal from service. The inquiry proceedings show that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the respondent had not attended the inquiry, therefore, no question of cross-examination arises. If this is so, then it has not been shown that he was summoned for the inquiry and inspite of it he failed to appear. If according to the learned counsel for the appellants, it was only a fact finding inquiry, then there being not on the record any other proceedings of the inquiry, so for this reason also the appellant was wrongly removed from service.

3. Since the appellant deposed in his statement before the learned lower Court that since the date of dismissal he was jobless it was necessary for the appellants to rebut this evidence but it was not done. So the respondent has been rightly allowed back benefits. However, the learned lower Court has wrongly allowed special costs of Rs.1,000 to the respondent. There is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the infliction of special costs. No section like section 35-A, C.P.C. can be found in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

4. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of imposition of special costs is vacated. A.E./487/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.