1978 PLP 38 (PLC)

S. 25‑A‑Re‑instatement ‑ Allegation against worker that he obtained leave from Social Security Office fraudulently‑Notice of enquiry and charge‑sheet not proved to have been served on accused workman imposing punishment of dismissal‑Workman to be deemed to have been re‑instated from date of dismissal with full back benefits‑‑Management may, if so advised, hold a fresh enquiry into allegation of fraud against workman. Sheikh Naseer Ahmad for Appellant. Respondent in person DECISION These two cross appeals have been filed by Rab Nawaz workman herein after mentioned as appellant and the Managing Director United Textile Mills Multan hereinafter mentioned as the respondent‑Management against the order dated 25th March 1974, of the Junior Labour Court Multan, setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the appellant and modified it into the stoppage of increment or promotion as it might suit the discretion of the respondent‑Management. The learned lower Court however held that the appellant shall not be entitled to any back benefits. The appellant has filed. an appeal to get himself re‑instated without any punishment as the stoppage of increment and promotion while the respondent‑Management has appealed to get the order of dismissal upheld passed in the domestic enquiry against the appellant. According to the case of the appellant he left the factory premises on 9th June 1973, on receiving an information about the illness of his wife whereafter he submitted an application for further leave through one Ejaz Khan worker. He resumed duty on 18th June 1973, but as he became suddenly ill, he left the factory premises having contacted Medical Officer, Social Security Concerned. On 19th June 1973, he obtained a leave certificate for the period from 19th June 1973, to 25th June 1973. As he could not recover from illness, he got the leave extended to 30th July 1973. He reported for duty on 31st July 1973, but he was refused to be taken on duty since the appellant was still in bad condition of health. He approached the Medical Officer and got his further rest from duty approved by him till 3rd August 1973. On 4th August 1973, as he asked for duty he was told by Ch. Muhammad Siddique Labour Officer, that his name had been struck off the rolls of the mills employees, whereafter he moved the junior Labour Court for redress. The case of the respondent‑Management is that appellant remained absent without leave from 19th June 1973 to 30th June 1973, during which period no application for leave was received from the appellant. An enquiry was started against him, which was deliberately not joined by him and as a result of which the appellant was dismissed. It is further contended that the appellant tried to defraud the Management by arranging bogus certificates of leave from Social Security Department which fact stood verified by its letter dated 7th‑July 1973, Exh. D. G. where under the respondent Management was informed that the leave on behalf of the appellant was got sanctioned by some one through fraud. The learned lower Court while considering the aforesaid letter of the Social Security Officer held that the leave in question obtained by the appellant was not valid and on that account he was proceeded against properly and the respondent‑Management was justified in taking action against the appellant. It was however observed by it that in view of long service of the appellant the order of the dismissal was too harsh and could not be maintained. The order of dismissal was therefore, advised to be converted into that of a stoppage of the increment or promotion. The impugned order is vague in terms and could not be acted upon by either of the parties to it. The impugned order could not be sustained as it had been proved by the respondent‑Management that the appellant was properly proceeded against and a right action was taken against him as observed in the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The basic question that arose for the determination during the arguments is whether the appellant was properly served with the first show‑cause notice in the enquiry alongwith the charge‑sheet or it was due to the fault of the appellant that he could not be served with the notice and wilfully avoided to Join the enquiry. There is no sufficient proof of the record to show as to which of the parties was actually at the fault with the matter. The respondent argu ment has relied on the notice Exh. D‑A and D‑B having been served on the appellant at the start of the enquiry which contained the allegation against the appellant, but it is not proved on record as to when these were served on the appellant, whereas according to the appellant, these notices were received by him at last stage of the enquiry when action had the completed against him. On the other hand letter Exh. D‑G stands on the file to support the contention of the respondent‑Management that the leave was got sanctioned fraudulently on behalf of the appellant. In such situation the appellant could not be punished on a premature basis when it was not at all proved on record that the appellant in fact was served with the notice o: enquiry and charge sheet etc. in proper manner and that leave obtained from the Social Security Office was a fraudulent transaction. The only Course open to this court is to make a regular enquiry against the appellant afresh and to come to a proper conclusion. In the result Rab Nawaz appellant will' be deemed to have been re‑instated in service with effect from the date of his dismissal with full back benefits and the respondent‑Management, if so advised may hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant regarding the fraud, alleged against him for remaining on leave without genuine Medical Certificates. The cross appeal filed on behalf of the respondent‑Management is dismissed.