1978 PLP 256 (PLC)

‑ ‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑Charge‑sheet, service of‑Must be served within one month of date of alleged misconduct‑Charge‑sheet served beyond prescribed period, held, time‑barred. Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Appellant Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th January 1977. This is an appeal against the decision dated, 23‑8‑76 of Punjab Labour Court, No. 3, Lyallpur.

2. Mohammad Asghar, respondent was employed as a worker in the Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwals. He was arrested in a criminal case on 2.3‑1976 and was released on bail on 17‑3‑1976. P. W. Mohammad Idrees, General Secretary of the respondent's Union visited the Jail and got an application, signed by the respondent, for leave, the copy of which is Exh. P‑

1. P. W. Mohammad Idrees sent that application to the Manage ment but no action was taken. On 10‑3‑1976 a charge‑sheet Exh D‑2 was framed against the respondent to the effect that he was absent from duty without leave for 48 days during the year 1975. Another charge -sheet dated 13‑3‑1976 was also framed against the respondent to the effect that he was absent without leave for more than ten days with effect from 2‑3‑1976. Both these charge sheets were sent to the respondent at his home address. Naturally no reply was received as the respondent was in Jail in those days. On 18‑3‑76 the respondent reported for duty after ‑his release from jail on 17‑3‑76 but the Management refused to allow him to resume duty. On 24.3‑1976 Mr.' Alt bar Abbas was appointed Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against the respondent on 28‑3‑1976 for which no notice was sent to the respondent. Ex parte inquiry was held and be was found guilty on both the counts. Thereafter, second show‑cause notice was served and ho furnished his explanation Exh. D‑9 on 31‑3‑1976, denying the allegations. After that the respondent was dismissed from service on 7‑4‑

77. The respondent's Union on his behalf challenged the order of his dismissal before the Labour Court by way of a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court accepted the petition and ordered the re‑instatement of the respondent with back benefits vide decision under appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Crescent Jute Products Ltd., through Managing Director, appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. From the narration of facts stated above it is clear that the Inquiry seas not held in accordance with law. The Management had come to know that the respondent had been released from jail on 17‑3‑76 when be reported for duty on 18‑3‑1976; but no notice of inquiry was sent to him. Further I find that the first charge‑sheen Exh D.2 dated 10‑3‑1976 was barred by time, because according to Standing Order 15(4) of W. P. Industrial an Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a workman m has to be informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer. The misconduct was that he was absent for 48 days without leave during the year, 1975 and this charge‑skeet was framed on 10‑3‑1976. This shows that it was hopelessly time barred. In any vase the inquiry which was held against the respondent in respect of both the charge‑sheets was in violation of law, because no opportunity was givers to him to explain the circumstances.

5. In view of the above I uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed