1989 PLP 921 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S.O. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑ Major punishment of compulsory retirement can be awarded it procedure given in S.O. 15 is followed‑‑Past bad reward and dereliction of duty of employee already dealt with by awarding punishment cannot be a ground for compulsory retirement as no one can be punished twice for the same act‑‑Employee retired compulsorily before superannuation age and before completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension‑‑Neither any charge‑sheet served nor enquiry conducted‑‑Action based on past record indicating instances of absence from duty resulting in issuance of warnings and imposition of penalty of stoppage increment‑‑Impugned order of compulsory retirement, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and appellant awarded reinstatement with all hack benefits. H.R. Harder for Appellant. Nazir Baig Chughtai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 13‑7‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant was compulsorily retired before reaching the age of superannuation or even before completing 25 years' service. The grounds were that he was habitual absentee; that his record was bad, inasmuch as vide order dated 29‑3‑198 his increments were stopped for two years; that treating the appellant as absent from 6‑8‑1984 to 8‑8‑1984 he was considered on leave without pay and was given warning to be careful in future; that vide order dated 25‑8‑1984 he was granted leave without pay for absence from 15‑8‑1984 to 18‑8‑1984; that vide order dated 5‑9‑1984 the absence of the appellant from 23‑8‑1984 to 4‑9‑1984 was treated as leave without pay and he was warned to be careful in future; that vide order dated 8‑7‑1980 his two increments were withheld and that vide order dated 7‑8‑1986, he was given severe warning. Admittedly, no charge‑sheet was given and no inquiry was held. Compulsory retirement at an age before reaching the age of superannuation or completing 25 years' service is a major punishment which can be awarded if the procedure given in Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is followed. There is no allegation of commission of any misconduct committed within thirty days of the order of retirement. For past bad record the appellant could not be compulsorily retired, because for past dereliction of duty he had already been properly dealt with and awarded punishment. No one can be punished twice for the same act. The learned lower Court has not cited any rule m its judgment nor any such rule has been shown to me during arguments which may have authorised the respondent to compulsorily retire a person on account of bad record, particularly when for the acts. for which the order of compulsory retirement has been passed, the employee had already been properly dealt with and punished.

3. For the discussion made above, I come to the conclusions that the order of compulsory retirement and the impugned order whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed are not maintainable.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in 3 service with back benefits. It is necessary to point out that the appellant urged in his statement made on oath that he teas jobless eversince the order of his compulsory retirement. He was not cross‑examined on the point, nor any evidence in rebuttal was produced to show that he had been doing some other work. A.E./591 /Lb. P Appeal accepted.