1971 PLP 116 (PLC)

MD. NURUL AUDA (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. Petitioner Shafi Ahmad alleges that he had been working under the second party (Messrs Zenith Ltd.) for over two years as a Fitter. He was suspended on 25‑12‑1969 on a flimsy ground. There was then a dhow of enquiry and he was dis missed by an order, dated 6‑1‑1970. The petitioner then submitted a grievance petition, which did not bring any tangible result. So the petitioner has come before the Court for re‑instatement in service. The second party filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the petitioner was charge‑sheeted for gross misconduct for disobedience to carry out lawful orders and wilfully damaging, company's property and on enquiry the petitioner was found guilty and he has been rightly dismissed from service The question is whether the dismissal of the petitioner is proper and valid. We .may say at this very outset that there was no charge sheet according to Law. Law provides that the allegations~ against the worker should be recorded in writing, he should be given not less than three days' time to explain and there should an indication that he should be given personal hearing if prayed for. The charge‑sheet in this case reads as follows: "You are suspended from service with immediate effect. You are required to explain why have destroyed locking arrangement of the suit‑case sent to you for reverting on the 2nd Flats. If your explanation is not found satisfactory you will be dismissed from service." This is no charge‑sheet according to provisions of law and militates against some mandatory provision of law. The most pertinent question is: What is the offence set out in this charge? What is the element of misconduct in it? Neglect of duty or anything else? In the so‑called enquiry the petitioner is shown to have said that there were no tools and machineries in the factory of the second party for the repairs of such a suit‑case. If that, be so, what fault is there? Quite at variance of the charge the petitioner has been found guilty of wilful disobedience and wilfully damaging companies, property. The enquiry does not clearly establish any charge against the petitioner for use any charge of misconduct as defined by Law. There is thus no proper charge in this case. No proper enquiry and the findings on, the enquiry erroneous. In the circumstances it is held that the dismissal of the petitioner has C been illegal, invalid and improper. The learned members are also in agreement with me. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to re‑instatement in service. Hence, That the case be allowed on contest. The petitioner be and is hereby re‑instated in his former service under the 2ndparty with all benefits of back wages. Second party do give effect to this order within one month from today.