1998PLC 310 (PLP)

Mazhar-ul-Islam, Representative for Appellant. Qamar Riaz Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th May, 1997. Soundness/validity of a decision rendered by, the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha (Mehr Ahmad Yar Lali) has been called in question, by way of the instant appeal, preferred by Taj Muhammad, whose grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed on 12-8-1992.

2. Taj Muhammad was a Mail Motor Driver in the Postal Department, Sargodha and he used to carry mail from the office of the Assistant Post Master, Delivery Branch, Sargodha, and deliver the same in the other branches, as also at the Railway Station and he would also collect postal bags from the branches, and hand over the same to the Delivery Branch, Head Post Office, Sargodha. He applied and was granted leave on half pay, for 72 days, from 8-10-1980 to 18-12-1980. He did not join duty on 19-12-1980. Instead he submitted a medical certificate issued by one Dr. Allah Bakhsh. Leave on medical ground for a month more, from 19-12-1980 to 18-1-1981, was applied for. He did not resume duty even on 19-1-1981, and another medical certificate issued by the same doctor was submitted. On both the occasions, he was asked to appear before the Medical Superintendent, G. H. Q. Hospital, Sargodha, so that second opinion could be obtained, but he did not obey these orders. An official, Muhammad Ashraf, on the first occasion, and another official, Muhammad Rafiq, on the second occasion, was deputed to get in touch with Taj Muhammad, and to deliver to him the official letters. Both reported that he was apparently in good health. Numerous directions were issued by the Post Master, Sargodha, but Taj Muhammad never appeared before the M.S. Private inquiry revealed that he was not suffering from ill-health, but had engaged himself in a private business. He started plying wagons. For remaining absent from duty, without lawful justification, for insubordination and for not complying with the directions of the Authorities, as also privately working for personal gains, without departmental permission, Taj Muhammad was charge-sheeted on 18-2-1981 (Exh. P-1). Departmental inquiry was initiated, but he did not participate therein. He was dismissed from service on 14-7-1981 by the Senior Post Master, Sargodha. 3.? Departmental appeal filed by Taj Muhammad was, however, accepted on 30-3-1982. In de novo inquiry, Taj Muhammad was served with a fresh charge-sheet on 7-10-1982 (Exh. P-5). Muhammad Aanif, Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices (Town), Sargodha was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Once again, Taj Muhammad opted not to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Vide inquiry report, Exh. P. 6, Taj Muhammad was held guilty of the charges leveled against him. Second show-cause notice, Exh. R-7, was served on him on 21-5-1985. He was asked to submit his defence within seven days, but he did not do so. Vide Exh. T-8, Taj Muhammad was dismissed from service on 30-6-1985. In the grievance petition it has been stated by Taj Muhammad that he had received the dismissal order dated 30-6-1985 on 25-7-1985. His grievance petition was originally filed on 17-12-1985, grievance notice Exh. P-12 having been served on 22-10-1985, the postal receipts being Exhs. P-13 to

17. The High Court had taken a decision, which was reported as 1985 PLC 1053, and it had been held that dismissed employees could not claim to be workmen and invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 25-A (ibid). The grievance petition, therefore, was returned on 23-4-1986 (Exh. R-12). Taj Muhammad remained in state of in-action. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered a decision, that was reported as PLD 1988 SC 53; and thereunder Taj Muhammad could have recourse to the Labour Court. He made an application for restoration of his previous grievance petition dated 17-12-1985. He, however, withdrew the same on 24-5-1988 (Exh. P-23). Afterwards, another grievance petition was filed on 24-5-1988.

4. Taj Muhammad has invoked usual grounds in bringing under challenge the order of his dismissal from service. He says that the charge?-sheet had been issued by an incompetent person, and he had not been permitted to participate in the proceedings of inquiry, and he had, in fact, no knowledge of such inquiry, having been ever initiated against him. Inquiry was not held in his presence and he was not allowed to cross-examine the P. Ws. and to produce his evidence in defence, and he had, in fact committed no act of misconduct, it was so maintained by him. An application under section 5, Limitation Act, for a condonation of delay, in filing the second grievance petition, was also submitted. The grievance petition was dismissed on 4-10-1989. On hearing appeal, this Tribunal, on 29-1-1990, remanded the case for re-decision. The Labour Court was directed to examine the question, if it could entertain a fresh grievance petition, the initial one having been returned for lack of jurisdiction. The parties did not lead any further evidence, when the matter was re-heard.

5. The learned Labour Court has held that no fresh grievance petition was competent and the charge of misconduct against the official stood proved when for lack of jurisdiction, the petition had been returned to the aggrieved person, he should have approached the proper forum for redressal of his grievance. He, however, neither filed a civil suit, nor a writ petition nor did he have access to the Service Tribunal. How could he anticipate that the apex Court of the country would return a verdict in favour of the dismissed employees? There was, thus, no justification for the in-action on his part, and for sitting idle, over a good length of period, without seeking any remedy.

6. In so far as the misconduct on his part was concerned, it could hardly be disputed that he had pointedly been guilty of it, and in a considerable degree. Twice he submitted medical certificates issued by a private practitioner, and did not get himself medically examined from the M.S. Many reminders were issued to him in that behalf, but to no avail. He indulged in deliberate disobedience of lawful orders of his superiors, and this amounted to insubordination. He had no lawful excuse for remaining absent from duty and that too without leave. Similarly, the act of his doing private business was highly objectionable. The General Manager, Rajput Transport Company, Sargodha gave his report on 26-4-1991, Exh. R-9, stating that Tai Muhammad has been serving in the said company as a driver over a period of about six months. Tai Muhammad even lodged a criminal case, vide F.I.R. No. Exh. R-14, at P.S. Lalian, as regards an accident having occurred on the night between 29/30-7-1982. He admitted this fact as P.W. 1, although he has made an unsuccessful attempt to furnish an explanation in that regard. He says that the wagon was being driver by the owner, but as he had no driving licence, he had requested him (Taj Muhammad) to pose himself as the driver and lodge the complaint. There, however, he cannot at all be believed, particularly when he has failed to disclose the name of the owner of the wagon. Taj Muhammad has failed to furnish any convincing evidence about the alleged illness, he was suffering from. On the contrary, he had, in actual practice, engaged himself in a private business to augment his income. This he could not do, without departmental permission, and so long as he was in Government service. Thus, the charge of misconduct, considered from any angle, stood established against him. He was absolutely guilty of indiscipline, insubordination, absence from duty without leave (for several months), and engagement in unauthorised private enterprise. The Authorities were wholly justified to remove him from service, and the learned Labour Court had no option but to endorse the act of the Authorities. I find myself to be in complete agreement with the observations made, reasons recorded and the findings arrived at by the Court below. The impugned decision dated 12-8-1992 is, therefore, upheld. The appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.N.T./905/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.