1989 PLP 62 (PLC)

Muneeb Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellants establishment against an impugned order dated 19‑4‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent tinder section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to be at permanent workman in the appellants establishment and that on 11‑6‑1983, he was issued a false, fabricated and dictated by the Union of the establishment, charge‑sheet alleging therein that he was not only an habitual absentee, late comer, but, also insubordinate in nature. The respondent further claimed that though he had satisfactorily replied to this charge‑sheet taking a defence that he was punctual in attending the duty, having unblemished service record, therefore, he was being victimized at the behest of the Union as he had enmity with the General Secretary of the same: but, an improper, biased, partial, dictated and unfair domestic enquiry was managed to be conducted against him, thus, Finding him preplanned guilty of the misconduct followed by his dismissal from service. So, the respondent had claim, ‑d that being aggrieved he had served his grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

3. The appellants establishment resisted the petition on legal objection that the grievance petition being hopelessly time‑barred, it was not legally maintainable, and also on merits of the case, it was resisted that as the alleges charge of misconduct was fully established in a proper, lawful and fair enquiry, in which he was fully afforded an opportunity to defend himself, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service so, was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellants establishment and Mr. Muneeb Ahmad Khan the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that the appellants establishment had itself not pressed its legal objection on the maintainability of the present grievance petition of the respondent and even in that case, from the perusal of the record and documents brought on record, I find that the grievance petition of the respondent was within time and thus, was legally maintainable. It is also an admitted position on record that the alleged charge sheet against the respondent was not maintainable in the eyes of law, as it did not specifically mention the exact and correct dates of cause of actions or the commissions of the misconduct, if any, thus, it cannot be said that it was proper charge‑sheet to be legally maintainable. There is also a confession from the appellants establishment on the record of the learned Labour Court, as is apparent in the impugned order, that the domestic enquiry against the respondent was not legal, impartial and fair and that the enquiry was admittedly under the influence of the management and that he had acted upon the instructions of it and thus, had not done justice to the respondent. In view of this admitted factual legal and circumstancial evidence brought on record, I would hold that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and the learned Labour Court was quite right in passing the impugned order by directing the app0lants establishment to immediately reinstate the respondent, Abdul Khaliq s/o Jalaluddin, in service with full back benefits. Hence, I would also maintain the same view.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits, forthwith. The amount of back benefits already deposited by the appellants establishment be immediately paid to the; respondent after due verification. A.E./1282/Lb.S. Appeal dismissed.