1978 PLP 480 (PLC)

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant. Sharp Hussain Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearings 1st February, 1977. This is an appeal against the decision dated, 23‑10‑1976 of Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.

2. Iftikhar Ahmed appellant was employed as a conductor in Govern ment Transport Service, Rawalpindi. His bus was checked at Abbottabad Post on 17‑3‑1976 and it was found that there were thirteen passengers from whom fare had been realised, but no ticket had been issued to them. Further one passenger was found travelling from Mansehra to Rawalpindi without ticket and the fare had also not been realised from him. It was the checker, who realized the fare from him. A charge‑sheet Exh P‑1 was issued to the appellant and he gave his explanation vide reply Exh P‑3, denying his guilt. In that explanation he mentioned that the charge-sheet was received by him on 20‑4‑1976. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and an inquiry was held in which he was found guilty of misconduct. He was, thereupon dismissed from service on 22‑7‑1976. He challenged the order of his dismissal by way of a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same ride decision under appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Iftikhar Ahmad appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. The learned Representative of the appellant contended that the charge‑sheet was barred by time and as such all the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated.

5. From the perusal of the charge‑sheet Exh. P‑1, I find that no date is given on it. It is merely mentioned that the date of charge-sheet is April, 1976. In the reply to the charge‑sheet Exh P.2, I find that the appellant has clearly stated that the charge‑sheet was issued to him on 20‑4‑1976. Accord ing to Standing Order 15(4) of W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date of which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer. In the present the charge‑sheet as alleged by the appellant was issued to him on 20‑4‑1976, which is after one month of the alleged misconduct. There is no evidence on the record to show that the respondent had come to know of the alleged misconduct some time later than 17‑3‑1976.

6. In view of the above I uphold the contention of the learned Repre sentative of the appellant and hold that the charge‑sheet issued to the appellant 'as barred by time and as such the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated.

7. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re‑instated. There is no question of allowing him back benefits because he has not been proved to be not guilty. Appeal accepted.