1984 PLP 1033 (PLC(CS))

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent (in Appeal No. KI‑845 of 1980/Pb.) and for Appellant (in RI‑18 of 1981/Pb.). Date of hearing : 12tb October, 1982. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 18th December, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby Mansoor Khan was directed to be re‑in-stated in service without back benefits. The P. I. A. C. in this judgment will be described as the appellant and Mansoor Khan as the respondent. The appellant has challenged the order of re‑instatement, whereas the respondent has claimed back benefits.

2. The respondent was a peon in Finance Department. A case of theft was registered against him at the instance of the appellant and he was arrested on 28th December, 1972. He was released on bail in May, 1973. He is alleged to have reported for duty after being released on bail, but it was refused. He was sentenced to three years' R. I. in the said theft case on 15th June, 1977 but was acquitted in appeal on 20th October, 1977. After being acquitted the respondent is alleged to have reported for duty on 20th October, 1977 to Usman, Accounts Assistant, but he was told by him that his services had been terminated. He, therefore, gave grievance notice which was followed by the institution of the grievance petition.

3. The case of the appellant is that in April 1973 the respondent was told that his services had been terminated, therefore, his grievance notice and grievance petition were time‑barred. It is said that written order of termination was passed but on account of the misplacement of the file, it could not be produced. The requirement of law is that services can be terminated by a written order giving explicit reasons for termination, If it is not proved that in reality the file containing the order of termination was lost, the presumption for not producing the termination order in Court would be that no such written order was ever passed. R. W.‑1 said that in connection with the appeal preferred by the appellant challeng ing the order of the lower Court to the effect that the petition was within time, the file was sent to Lahore from where it never came back. It means that before filing the appeal, the file was available, then why original or copy of the order of termination was not brought on the Court file. Moreover, when an order of termination is passed, copies are sent to the branch concerned for implementation and to other concerned quarters, so that entry in the relevant record be made and drawing of pay of person concerned may be stopped. So if the file had been lost, any of the copies of the termination order sent to various concerned authorities could be called and produced in Court. It appears that either no order of termination was passed, or it contained some inherent defects for which it may not have been sustainable. This is, therefore, wrong that the file alongwith the order of termination was lost.

4. The objection of the appellant was before the learned lower Court that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time barred. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the respondent said that in May, 1973 he had submitted duty report but duty was refused, it amounted to lock‑out and since he did pot take any action, the petition was time‑barred. If it was a lock‑out, the remedy to challenge the lock‑out may be time‑barred but not against termination about which no intimation, according to the respondent, was given to him. R. W. 1 stated that the termination order was despatched to the respondent but he did not give any date on which it was despatched. The official who despatched the copy was not examined. No postal receipt was produced. He also said that the copy of the order was delivered to the respondent when he had approached the management. But no receipt has been produced. Moreover, R. W. 1 says that the respondent approached the management in 1977 and from 1973 to 1977 he never came, meaning that the copy of the order of termination was delivered to him when he had approached the management in 1977. So says the respondent that he reported for duty after being acquitted on 20th October, 1977 but was told that his services had been terminated and from that date the grievance notice and the grievance petition are within time. So it is not proved that the termination was conveyed to the respondent on such a date that from that the petition was time‑barred. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly held that the petition was within time.

5. Since it has not been proved that any written order of termination giving explicit reasons was passed; the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) were violated and the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service.

6. This is wrong that in May, 1973 the respondent reported for duty. The highest authority at the station was the Manager, but this is not his case that he had asked him for duty. Even if it be believed that he had contacted Mr. Usman, Accounts Assistant who was not competent to give duty, the respondent should have, after Mr. Usman had refused, gone to the Manager. He probably waited till the decision of the criminal case, but he was not justified. He, therefore, was rightly held by the learned lower Court as not entitled to back benefits.

7. As upshot of the discussion made above, both the appeals are dismissed. A. E. Appeals dismissed.