1997 PLP 34 (PLC)

(ii) To keep check on the number of bags/load in trucks etc. (iii) To keep checks on the total weight of cement in trucks and wagons. (iv) To control the weigh‑bridges for trucks and wagons. (v) To keep check for any loose on the floors of trucks and wagons. (b) Subsidiary activities: (i) To sign gate passes after normal hours. (ii) To prepare shift inspection reports for submission to General Manager. Even a fleeting glance over the duties assigned to the petitioner would reveal that he is nothing but a "workman". He does not perform any executive or administrative duty. He has no subordinates at all to superintend and the nature of each and every duty is either manual or clerical.

7. There is another document (Exh.RW2/4) of a colleague of the petitioner whose job description was Assistant Officer; Fair Price Shop. His basic pay is also Rs.800 per month and the principal duties are as follows:‑‑‑ A. (i) To arrange purchase of the foodstuffs and other items of general use for sale in the Fair Price Shop of Factory. . (ii) To organise and supervise sale from Fair Price Shop. (iii) To keep record of purchase and sale of Fair Price Shop. B. Subsidiary activities. (i) To organise and supervise sale of cement for use of workers and residents of the surrounding villages. (ii) To exercise administrative control on staff working in Fair Price Shop. A perusal of this document would also suggest that the nature of the duties of the petitioner were either manual or clerical. As subsidiary activities, he had control over the staff working in Fair Price Shop but it has come in evidence that even such staff was not directly subordinate and he could even not grant them any casual leave. We are of the considered view that Abdul Rashid petitioner, irrespective of the designation that he enjoyed, was a "workman" and the nature of his job was no better than either manual or clerical. The forums of the labour hierarchy seem to have been impressed merely by the designation of his post and have not gone into the details of job description/principal duties.

8. Coming to the merits of the case, the first explanation of the petitioner Abdul Rashid was called through a confidential letter dated 16‑6‑1985 issued under No. MCL/Admn:4286 (Annexure 'C') on record. This call for explanation is a complete admission of the fact that the so‑called irregularities committed by the petitioner had come to the notice of the Administration on 30‑4‑1985 when he handed over the charge of the Fair Price Shop to Mr. Ghulam Yasin Khan. Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) categorically provides that a charge‑sheet should be issued to a "workman" within one month of the misconduct committed or within one month of the I misconduct having come to the knowledge of employer. Keeping this mandatory provision of law in view, the charge‑sheet framed in the instant case on the 30th of July, 1985 was clearly time‑barred and no action could be taken against the petitioner there under.

9. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the purpose of charge‑sheet was only to apprise a "workman" of the allegations levelled against him and that the very explanation dated 16‑6‑1985 could be taken and construed as a charge‑sheet. With utmost efforts, we could not find ourselves in agreement with such conclusion. Even if the letter dated 16‑6‑1985 calling for explanation is considered to be a charge‑sheet, it is beyond time from the date of knowledge of misappropriation acquired by the administration admittedly on 30‑4‑1985. Taking another situation in view, even if we consider the date of knowledge as 16th of June, 1985 (which it is not), yet the charge‑sheet ought to have been issued on or before the 16th July, 1985, whereas, it was issued on the 30th July, 1985. Considered from any angle whatsoever, the charge‑sheet in hand is barred by time and no action can be based thereon.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued and same is the stand taken by the petitioner throughout that his General Manager Mr. Wazir Muhammad was personally against him. That such charges were once brought against him but subsequently dropped after enquiry yet everything was rejuvenated when Mr. Wazir Muhammad again came into authority. Such allegation does not seem to be untrue in the light of the facts already narrated above and it seems in such background that the charge‑sheet became time barred. The matter does not end here but the accusation brought about by the petitioner seems genuine because the same Wazir Muhammad has issued a charge‑sheet to the petitioner and the same Wazir Muhammad has ordered his PLC dismissal from service. This would not have had mattered much, as reasoned by 40 the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal but the most objectionable way of dealing with the petitioner was that the same Wazir Muhammad appeared as a main witness against the petitioner. He was himself a prosecutor, an executor as well as a witness. This conduct hits at the very root of justice, equity and fairplay which can in no way be sustained in law.

11. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the petitioner was a "workman", that the charge‑sheet issued to him seriously violated the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) and lastly that the enquiry conducted against him violated the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. The writ petition is accepted, both the impugned judgments are set aside and the petitioner Abdul Rashid is hereby reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal, with all the back benefits. We do not feel that the remand in the instant case would serve the ends of justice because the two forums in their judgments had discussed the merits as well which in term, had to be discussed by this Court in the light of record before us. A.A./2021/P Petition accepted.