1981 PLP 882 (PLC(CS))

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑Charge‑sheet‑Served three months after alleged misconduct coming to notice of employer‑Invalid‑Workman dismissed‑Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court with orders for fresh enquiry‑Charge‑sheet initially not served within one month‑Dismissal second time after fresh enquiry under orders of Labour Court, also, held, not valid because of being based upon invalid charge‑sheet. Sirajul Haq Qureshi for Appellant. Date of hearing : 12th February, 1981. This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Third Labour Court, given on 7th December, 1980, allowing the grievance petition filed by the respondent‑workman, who was employed as a Bus Conductor in the appellant‑Corporation, and directing his re‑instatement to service with full back benefits. It may be pointed out that the respondent was originally dismissed from service with effect from 25th April, 1977 on the charge of remaining absent without leave for a period exceeding ten days. He challenged his dismissal from service before the learned Second Labour Court which set aside the dismissal orders on the ground that the dismissal orders were in violation of the provisions of the Standing Order

15. On appeal my learned predecessor upheld the orders of the learned Labour Court but gave an option to the appellant‑Corporation to charge‑sheet the respondent and hold a domestic enquiry against him in accordance with law. The respondent, accordingly, was issued a charge -sheet, dated 5th April, 1977, which is said to have been received by him on 7th February, 1979. Finally, the respondent was dismissed for a second time with effect from 14th March, 1979. Against his dismissal the respondent approached the learned Third Labour Court, which has passed the impugned order.

2. The sole point which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the misconduct of the respondent was brought to his notice within one month thereof or the misconduct coming to the notice of the employer as required by clause (4) of Standing Order

15. Although the attention of the learned Representative for the appellant‑Corporation was specifically drawn to this shortcoming, he was unable to refer me from the record to any evidence indicating that the misconduct of the respond ent was brought to his notice within the statutory period. All that there is on the record is the charge‑sheet, dated 5th April, 1977. As this charge -sheet was issued almost three months after the alleged misconduct of the respondent, it does not fulfil the requirements of clause (4) of Standing Order

15. It was, however, argued by Mr. Sirajul Haq, the learned Representative for the appellant‑Corporation, that the second enquiry against the respondent was in pursuance of the orders, dated 16th January, 1979, passed by my learned predecessor on appeal against the orders of the learned Second Labour Court, setting aside the first orders of dismissal in respect of the appellant. This circumstance, how ever, does not alter the requirement of law that if a workman is to be dismissed, the acts or omissions constituting his misconduct must be brought to his notice within one month thereof or their coming to The notice of the employer. From the record of the case it would appear that this necessary requirement of law has not been fulfilled.

3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.