1974 PLP 21 (PLC)

As regards the service of notice the petitioner has stated that he sent a grievance notice to the respondent for the redress of his grievance and in support of his contention he produced a copy of that notice Exh. P. 8 and the postal receipt Exh. P.

9. This receipt bears the stamp of Jail Road Post office dated 10th August 1972. Relying on the statement of R. W. I it is contended that after the dismissal of the petitioner application Exh. R‑2 from him for payment of his dues was received and the postal receipt Exh. P. 9 is in respect of that application. The hollowness of this contention is exposed by the fact that application Exh. R‑2 is dated 15‑7 whereas the postal receipt is dated 10th August 1972. The statement of the petitioner that he sent a grievance notice is supported by documentary evidence in the nature of postal receipt and must prevail. The objection is therefore overruled. As regards the facts of the case the respondent has contended that since the petitioner had admitted the truth of allegations in his reply to the charge- sheet, therefore, it Was not necessary to hold an enquiry against him. In the reply to the charge‑sheet Exh. P. 6 the petitioner admitted that he left the plant at 09‑45 p.m. i.e. 15 minutes before 10 p.m. when his duty was to expire As already stated above the charge‑sheet contains the allegation that on 22‑5‑72 at 09‑30 p.m. the petitioner was found absent from duty which was to expire at 10 p.m. Standing Order 15(3) provides that the following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct :‑ (a) wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combina tion with others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior ; (b) wilful damage, theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employers business property ; (c) wilful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property ; (d) taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratifications ; (e) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days ; (f ) habitual late attendance ; (g) habitual breach of any law applicable to the establishment ; (h) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establish ment or any act subversive of discipline ; (i) habitual negligence or neglect of work ; (l) frequent repetition of any act or omission referred to in clause (t) ; (k) striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any law or rule having the force of law ; (l) go‑slow. From clause (e) above it would appear that only habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days is to be treated as misconduct. There is no allegation of habitual absence or absence without leave for more than 10 days against the petitioner and his absence for 15 minutes or half an hour can hardly be regarded as misconduct. The other allegation against the petitioner for which he was charge‑sheeted is that he made a bogus report in the daily report register. In cross‑examina tion he has admitted that in the Register he made a report that he had entrusted the plant to Sufi Siddique in working condition. He further stated that as a matter of fact Sufi Siddique was not present when he made the report but was to resume duty after him and that helpers were present on duty at the plant when he left it. In cross‑examination he further stated that helpers can also remove defects occurring in the plant. Making a bogus entry in the Register does not fall within clauses (a) to (l) of S O. 15(3) and cannot be treated as misconduct. Making false or misleading statements is covered by clause (c) of S. O. 15(i)ii) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance and a person guilty of snaking such statement can only be reprimanded or fined in the prescribed manner. The dismissal order shows that the petitioner was dismissed from service for causing damage to the tune of Rs. one lac. In this order it is further stated that the petitioner had admitted that he was guilty for forgery and negligence. The charge‑sheet dated 6‑6‑72 was served on the petitioner on 10‑6‑72 and in this document it is nowhere stated that the plant was damaged causing loss to the Company to the tune of Rs. one lee. As already stated above making a bogus entry in the Register does not fall with the clauses (a) to (l) of S. O. 15(3) reproduced above and cannot be treated as misconduct. There was also no allegation of negligence against the petitioner in the charge‑sheet. The only allegation that has been established against the petitioner is that he was found absent from duty on 22‑5‑72 at 9‑30 p.m. although be was required to work till 10 p.m. Absence for half an hour does not fall within the mischief of misconduct under Standing Order 15(3), clause (e). 'Me order of dismissal is therefore improper and unsustainable. For the foregoing reasons I accept this application, set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and direct the Management to re‑instate him within a week from today. He shall also be paid all his back benefits.