1989 PLP 229 (PLC)

‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4) & S.O. 15(4)‑‑Lahore Development Authority running under statute and not under authority of Government‑‑Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance; 1968, held, would be applicable‑‑Dismissal of Junior Pump Operator of LDA for alleged misconduct of absence from duty without charge‑sheet and enquiry as per requirements of S.O. 15(4), held, was illegal. Ch. Bashir Ahmed for Appellant. Mian Mehboob Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th September, 1987. This is an appeal challenging f he decision dated 23‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant by his grievance petition challenged the reversion order dated 13‑9‑1983 and order of removal from service dated 23‑10‑1983.

2. The appellant was initially appointed as Junior Pump Operator (JPO). He was thereafter recommended by his superiors many a time for higher posts but he could not be promoted for want of vacancy. He was ultimately appointed as Assistant Foreman vide order Ex. P‑3 dated 24‑3‑1980 on ad hoc basis by respondent No.

2. He was reverted as JPO by respondent No. 3 by order referred to above. The ground of reversion is three‑fold; that he was not middle pass, that he had no seven years service as Assistant Fitter and lastly that he was considered by selection committee vide order dated 13‑9‑1983 and was not recommended. According to Appendix `A' page 37 copy of which is Exh. R‑8, minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Foreman is middle pass and a minimum experience of seven years service as S.S. Fitter. So, the reason given for his reversion was cogent. Since he was duly considered by the selection committee and was not recommended further strengthens the order of reversion. The learned lower Court thus rightly refused to interfere and set aside the order of reversion.

3. However, the order of termination from service is not legal. The allegation was of absence from duty. Admittedly no charge‑sheet was given nor any enquiry was held. The learned lower Court has wrongly decided that Standing A Orders Ordinance, 1968 does not apply to L.D.A. Two conditions are given in section 1(4)(c) which are that; the establishment should be running under the authority of the Government and should have statutory rules. L.DA is running under L.DA. Act and not under the authority of any Government. Therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies and since the charge was of misconduct it was necessary to comply with the provisions 15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance,‑1968. Even the absence is not proved as a matter of fact. R.W. 2 said that application for leave R‑11 of the appellant was received which was rejected vide order Exh. R‑12 and that the appellant made another application Exh. R‑13 which was forwarded to the Senior Construction Engineer vide letter copy of which is Exh, R=

15. There is no evidence as to what happened to the application Exh. R‑

13. Even there is no evidence if the appellant was conveyed the rejection of his application Exh. R‑

11. Since he was not conveyed the rejection order he was justified in considering that his petition may have been allowed. So the offence was not without any just cause and without making any application for leave.

4. As a result the appeal is partly accepted and maintaining the order of the learned lower Court with regard to the reversion of the appellant the order of removal from service is set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service as J.P.O. So far as back benefits are concerned the appellant deposed on oath in his statement before the learned lower Court that he was unemployed since his dismissal. This evidence was not rebutted by either R.W. 1 or R.W. 2 so the appellant‑ is entitled to back benefits also and he is accordingly allowed the same. A.E./420/Lb. P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly accepted.