1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MISBAHULLAH KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑The appellant, Muhammad Rafiq, while serving as Lineman‑I was proceeded against under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and dismissed from service by order dated 13‑4‑1982. On receipt of the order of dismissal the appellant served a grievance notice under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 11‑6‑1982 and thereafter filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court, Lahore, which was returned to him on the point of jurisdiction. The appellant filed a departmental representation on 21‑3‑1983 and then the present appeal before this Tribunal on 29‑3‑1983. 2‑ The appellant's case, in the first instance, is that he being a workman, the proceedings against him should have been taken under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In this respect the Tribunal has already held in other cases that where the department has framed its rules relating to Efficiency and Discipline the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would not be applicable.

3. The respondent's main legal objection to the appeal is that since no appeal from the order of dismissal had been filed before the WAPDA authorities, the present appeal is incompetent before this Tribunal. No doubt, in the first instance, no appeal was filed by the appellant to challenge the order under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, nevertheless, the error was rectified before filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly the departmental appeal was barred by time but since the legal position was not clear at the relevant time, we condone the delay.

4. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant by serving a show cause notice straightaway wherein it was pointed out that the appellant had submitted medical certificates for the period 24‑7‑1981 to 7‑11‑1981 and from 8‑11‑1981 to 7‑1‑1982 in support of his illness and excuse for absence but the same on verification, were found to be forged certificates as they were not hearing the genuine signature of any Medical Officer. A further charge against him was that he had been absent for the period commencing from 24‑7‑1981.

5. From the record we find that the two certificates submitted by the appellant, were, in fact, forged ones and no Medical Officer had issued them. It has been specifically stated that no Medical Officer had signed the certificates. In fact the appellant himself in his application addressed to the Superintendent, WAPDA, stated that he was introduced in Sunny View Hospital, to one Azhar Latif who was tracer in the Office of the Superintendent and that he called some doctor who checked the appellant and said that he (the appellant) was not well. According to the appellant, the said Azhar Latif thereafter handed over the medical certificate to him which he produced for obtaining the leave. This application, on the face of it, appears to be a lame excuse and no prudent man would believe the story put forward by the appellant. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that the appellant presented forged certificates for grant of leave and absented himself without obtaining permission of the competent officer. The allegations having been proved against the appellant, we cannot accede to his request and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.

6. Parties to be informed accordingly. A.A./432/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.