1988 PLP 58 (PLC)

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 8‑12‑1986 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad, who has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O.‑, 1969.

2. Brief fact9 of the case are that the appellant was a cashier and was posted at Saddar Branch of the respondent Bank. He was served with a charge‑sheet No.679/85, dated 23‑6‑1983 and was suspended by letter dated 24‑5‑1983. He replied to the said charge sheet which was not found satisfactory and subsequently vide letter, dated 6‑8‑1983. One Munshi Khan alleged to be as enquiry officer called the appellant to appear before him for the enquiry and enquiry was alleged to have been conducted by him but no result thereon was communicated to the appellant. Then again on 23‑10‑1983, a letter was received by the appellant to appear before another enquiry officer namely, Faqir Muhammad Shaikh in regard to the same and similar allegations contained in the charge sheet dated 23‑5‑1983. The appellant claimed that this enquiry was also contrary to all provisions of law as well as principles of natural justice. It was further alleged by the appellant that the Enquiry Officer Munshi Khan, had first recorded his statement and name of the prosecution witness was examined before him nor was afforded an opportunity to cross was examined before him any witness and even the appellant was not permitted to lead his defence. It was also alleged by the appellant that he was never served the charge‑sheet disclosing the charges against him, but merely a letter was sent to him whereby he was placed under suspension. The appellant further claimed that as he was an active member of the C.B.A. Union, therefore the executive of the respondent‑bank were inclined to remove him from the service further, the claim of the appellant was that a belated charge‑sheet, dated 23‑5‑1983 was received by him on 3‑7‑1983, while the allegation of false, fabricated and manufactured misappropriation of certain telephone bills were paid to be deducted by the Bank prior to the month of February, 1983.

3. The respondent resisted the petition of the appellant on the ground that as the appellant was found guilty of the charges in two consecutive domestic enquiries, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service. The respondent had denied that the appellant was not afforded full opportunity to defend himself or that any illegality had been committed by the said enquiry officers. The respondent establishment had challenged the maintainability of the grievance petition of the appellant on the point of limitation and submitted that it be dismissed also on this point.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence as well as their witnesses and all of them were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ishaque Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. Ghani Khan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent‑Bank and have gone through the entire record and proceedings of the case and also have carefully ‑examined the legal of the case. It is an admitted position that the charge‑sheet was hope‑lessly time‑barred as according to the respondent‑Bank itself, the alleged charge of misappropriation of certain telephone bills came to the knowledge of the Branch which had reported the matter to the Zonal Officer, Hyderabad on 12‑2‑1983 and as per own admission of the respondent‑Bank, the so‑called preliminary investigation was held the by Munshi Khan and a report holding the appellant guilty of alleged misconduct, was made on 9‑3‑1983, i.e. after about three months, when the mandatory and statutory period of issuance of the charge‑sheet to an employee by the employer after coming to the knowledge of the alleged misconduct, is fixed a period of one month or 30 days. The delay in issuing the charge‑sheet to the appellant for any reason does not mean that he should be punished quite illegally and be removed from the service mainly on account of his trade union activities. In view of this admitted position, I would hold that the alleged charge‑sheet was hopelessly time‑barred and it cannot be sustained, hence, set aside.

6. As regards the conduct of the domestic enquiry on merits of the ease, it is an admitted position on record that it was quite contrary to the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice. The appellant was not at all afforded full' reasonable opportunity, either to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses or to lead his defence in proper manner. 'So, on this point also, the respondent‑Bank has no case and the said enquiry is also held to be illegal and not maintainable. In view of the factual and legal position of the case, I would hold that the dismissal of the appellant from service was quite improper and illegal and mainly a victimization on account of his legitimate trade union activities, therefore, the learned Labour Court was incorrect in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant by its impugned order. I, would therefore, set aside it.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefit, forthwith. M. Y. Ft. /1000/Lb.S Appeal allowed.