1978 PLP 452 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 14th April 1977. This is an appeal against the decision dated 4‑11‑1976 o1'Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore.

2. Abdul Latif Butt, appellant was employed as a General Clark under the respondent at the Project Site near Sulemanki. It was alleged that on 14‑271975 after office hours the appellant caused injuries to one Khadim Hussain, Light Vehicle Driver of Sulemanki and thereby, committed an act subversive of discipline. His services were terminated on 14‑4‑1975 on the above charge of misconduct. He challenged the order of termination of his services by way of a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same vide decision under appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. The learned Representative of the appellant contended that the termination order was passed without holding any inquiry against the appellant.

5. On going through the record I find that the incident took place on 14‑2‑1975. Vide Exh. R‑4 dated 27‑2‑75 an Inquiry Committee was constituted. Exh. R‑5 dated 15‑3‑1975 is the inquiry report to the effect that the charge of misconduct had been established against the appellant. Thereafter, on 31‑3‑1975 a charge‑sheet was issued to the appellant. Exh. R‑2 is the reply to the charge‑sheet by the appellant. On that reply there is a note dated 12‑4‑1975 of the Project Engineer that the explanation submitted by the appellant was unsatisfactory and that he should be dismissed at once and five days later t. e. on 17-4‑1975 his services were terminated. No inquiry proceedings were exhibited in this case.

6. From the above it is clear that after the inquiry report Exh. R‑5 dated 15‑3‑1975, the charge‑sheet Bah. R‑1 dated 31‑3‑1975 was issued and on the reply Exh. R‑2 of the appellant in view of the note of the Project Engineer dated 12‑4‑1975. the services of the appellant were terminated five days later 1. e. 17‑4‑1975. Thus it is clear that the charge‑sheet war issued after the appellant had already been found guilty, which amounted to putting a cart before the horse. It is also clear that no inquiry was held after the issuance of charge‑sheet to the respondent and receiving his reply.

7. In view of the above, the order of termination was in contravention of law.

8. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re‑instated with back benefits with effect from 17‑4‑1975. Appeal accepted.