1990 PLP 451 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.O.15(4)‑‑‑Charge‑sheet‑‑‑Accused to be informed about alleged misconduct within one month‑‑‑Provision mandatory‑‑‑Time cannot be extended by Labour Court‑‑‑Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court after finding that charge‑sheet had not been served upon accused workman but employer allowed to hold fresh enquiry if desired‑‑‑Charge‑sheet thus served after about 2 years of alleged misconduct and resultantly fresh dismissal order passed by employer‑‑Charge -sheet, held, was time‑barred and order of Labour Court would have no weight, because Labour Court had no power to permit an employer to do something which law forbade‑‑‑Dismissal order thus was not sustainable. Wahid Bux, Representative for Appellant. Raes M. Mushtaq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, dated 3‑1‑1989, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was a Driver working with the respondents. He is alleged to have remained absent without leave from 28‑6‑1985 to 27‑10‑1985. After serving charge‑sheet and holding domestic enquiry against him, the appellant was dismissed from service by respondents, against which he filed grievance Petition No. 61 of 1987 which was decided by learned Labour Court No. VIth at Hyderabad on 19‑10‑1987, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was allowed. He was ordered to be reinstated in service, but, the respondents were permitted to hold fresh enquiry against him, if they so desired. The learned Labour Court further observed that the charge‑sheet had not been served upon the appellant. The respondents after reinstating the appellant, served upon him a fresh charge‑sheet on the same charges on 12‑11‑1987, and after holding fresh enquiry against him again dismissed him vide order, dated 15‑12‑1987. The appellant after serving the grievance notice on the respondents, filed grievance petition which was dismissed, vide the impugned order.

3. I have heard Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, the learned Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Wahid Bux has mainly relied upon the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which provides that no worker shall be dismissed unless he is informed about the misconduct within one month of the commission of the alleged misconduct. As pointed above, in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court in the first grievance petition the learned Labour Court had held that the charge‑sheet had not been served upon the appellant and, therefore, the respondents served a fresh charge‑sheet against him on 12‑11‑1987. Whereas the misconduct is alleged to have been committed by him in 1985. Obviously this charge‑sheet is time‑barred and bit by Standing Order No.

15. The contention of the respondents that this second charge‑sheet was served in pursuance of the Court Order, has got no legs. weight as the Labour Court has no powers to permit an employer to do something which the law forbids. The order of dismissal as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is patently illegal and cannot be sustained, therefore, is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be reinstated. With regard to back benefits, the record is silent on the point as to whether during the period, the appellant was not in service of the respondents, whether he was employed gainfully elsewhere or he was sitting unemployed. As such I allow him 50% (fifty per cent) back benefits. A.E./1.450/Lb. S Reinstatement awarded.