1981 PLP 65 (PLC)

"Keeping in view the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, statement of Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq, Time Checker and other Time Checker Mr. Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Ibrahim, following punishments are awarded :‑ (a) Mr. Muhammad Akram, Time Checker. Dismissed from service (b) Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Time Checker. Dismissed from service (c) Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq, Time Checker. Increment stopped for one year. After serving grievance notice the appellant and Muhammad Akram approached the Labour Court by filing separate petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appellant Muhammad Ibrahim himself appeared as his own witness while the Management produced Khalid Masood, A. T. M. as D. W.

1. The Labour Court vide order dated 8‑8‑1979 without touching the merits of the case accepted the petition on the ground that the District Manager of P. U. T. C. was not competent to pass the order of dismissal against the appellant because he was an employee of P. R. T. B. On appeal this order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Labour Court for decision on merits in accordance with law.

2. After the remand the Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 15‑3‑1980 has dismissed the petition of Muhammad Ibrahim, appellant. The appellant has challenged the impugned decision through the present appeal.

3. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant material available on the record.

4. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant that the basic report in this case against the appellant lodged by Mushtaq Hussain, Time Checker, does not disclose any allegation of misconduct and alternatively the allegation does not amount to misconduct. He has further contended that the version given in the charge‑sheet (Exh D. 1) although given on the basis of the report of Mushtaq Hussain, Time Checker (Exh. D. 7), yet it is not the same but is different. Mr. Shafiq‑ul‑Islam in reply argues that charge‑sheet (Exh. D. 1) is based upon the written report of Anwar Hussain dated 17‑5‑1979 and not the report of Mushtaq Hussain, Time Checker. No doubt in Exh. D. 1 against column "ﺐﻧﺎﺟﻧﻣ" the name of Anwar Hussain is written but this report has not been placed on the record by the Management. Moreover, Khalid Masood, A. T. M. (D. W. 1) in his statement has categorically stated that (Exh. D. 7) was the complaint against the appellant. After this admission and. without formally bringing the report of Anwar Hussain on the record‑ of the present case, no reliance can be placed on the said report of Anwar Hussain. The prosecution has in fact based its case on the report of Mushtaq Hussain, Time Checker. Even the District Manager in his impugned dismissal order has relied upon the complaint made by Mushtaq Hussain and not of Anwar Hussain. It is not denied that there is vast variation in the allegations contained in the charge -sheet Exh. D. 1 and report of Mushtaq Hussain (Exh. D. 7) (both reproduced above).

5. A perusal of the report of Mushtaq Hussain (Exh. D. 7) shows that there is no allegation that the appellant and his colleagues received currency notes of Rs. 10.05 and 1 denomination from the passengers but charge -sheet and dismissal order is based upon the receipt of the said currency notes by the appellant. Similarly, there is no allegation in basic report (Exh. D. 7) that the appellant and his colleagues quarrelled or exchanged hot words with the Conductor, but again this allegation has been made against the appellant in the charge‑sheet (Exh. D. 1) as well as in the dismissal order. The other griev ance of the appellant is that alongwith charge Exh. D. 1 he was not supplied with the copy of the report of preliminary enquiry conducted by Traffic Manager.

6. The most serious objection against the dismissal order is that every thing in this case was done in great haste. The occurrence took place on 17‑5‑1979, the complaint against the appellant was made on the same day. The charge‑sheet (Exh. D. 1) was issued on the same day, the preliminary enquiry was conducted on the same day, the domestic enquiry was also held and completed on the same day (17‑5‑1979), the final show‑cause notice (Exh. D. 5) was also issued on the same day i. e. 17‑5‑1979. The dismissal order was issued on 20‑5‑1979. In the charge‑sheet it is mentioned that the appellant could submit his reply within 3 days after receipt of the charge sheet. This part from the charge‑sheet is reproduced below:- Similarly in the final show‑cause notice (Exh. D. 5) the appellant was directed to submit his reply within 7 days. The relevant portion of the notice para. 2 reads as under :‑

7. From the narration, it is not denied that the Management completed everything in one day. The occurrence took place on 17‑5‑1979, the complaint, charge‑sheet, preliminary enquiry, domestic enquiry, final show cause notice, all completed in one day i. e. 17‑5‑1979 and order of dismissal two days thereafter i. e. 20‑5‑1979. According to Mr. Shafiq‑ul‑Islam, this haste in fact shows the efficiency of the Management that everything was completed without slightest delay and this was done in accordance with the true spirit of law. If the appellant bad not been denied the basic right, even recognised by the Management in the charge‑sheet, final show‑cause notice, to give his explanation, perhaps there could be some force in the contention of the counsel for the Management. In the instant case under the garb of quick disposal of the dispute and efficiency of the Management, 14 the appellant has practically been condemned unheard as he was not given adequate opportunity to give his explanation or to produce his defence.

8. Another circumstance which goes against the prosecution is that according to dismissal order. Exh. D. 6 the appellant was dismissed from service while Mushtaq Hussain, Time Checker, was treated leniently by awarding lesser penalty of stopping increment of one year. According to the appellant, his case was similar to that of the said Mushtaq Hussain. It is alleged by him that the reason for awarding lesser penalty to Mushtaq Hussain is that he was shown special favour by the Management, otherwise his case was at par with the appellant.

9. The cumulative effect of the above infirmities or defects in the proceedings is that the appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself during the said proceedings. Accordingly, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned decision of the Labour Court and also set aside the dismissal order dated 20‑5‑1979 passed by the District Manager and order the re‑instatement of the appellant in service with 50 per cent. back benefits. Appeal accepted.