This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore whereby grievance petition brought by appellant was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant was serving as Technician (No, P-1732) maintenance Department with the respondent. He was appointed on 16.9.1984 but his services were terminated vide order dated 29.4.1997. He filed grievance petition and stated that he was permanent workman under the Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as well as I.R.O. 1969. He further stated that he was elected as General Secretary of Alkasib Workers Union Millat Tractors Limited and due to this new union office bearers of Millat Tractors Workers Union were annoyed and he was got involved in a false case and charge sheeted vide letter dated 4.3.1997. The appellant averred that inquiry was conducted against him and he was dismissed from service vide dated 29.4.1997. He stated that charge sheet was time barred and he was not given second show cause notice. The appellant served grievance notice and filed grievance petition and prayed for reinstatement into service with back benefits. The respondent filed reply. Learned trial Court recorded evidence and dismissed the grievance petition brought by appellant vide judgment dated 12.12.2000. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above the appellant was appointed as technician on 16.9.1984 and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 29.4.1967. According to charge sheet (Ex. P.1) the allegation against the appellant was that of habitual absence from duty. The charge sheet shows that he remained absent on four occasions in January 1997 and on four occasions in February 1997. He was late for four days in January 1997 and attended duty late for three days in February 1997. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had been serving with the respondent for about 12 years 7 (1/4) months but during said period there was no such complaint against him. Further submits that according to West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the respondent could award reasonable punishment. He has argued that according to Standing Order 15(2) different punishments have been provided, therefore, .punishment of dismissal awarded to appellant was not commensurate with the offence charged and was much on the higher side. He has relied upon the case of Personal/Factory Manager Packages Limited Versus Yousaf Masih etc. (KLR 1987 Labour Cases 244 (Lahore). He also submits that appellant would not claim back benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that during inquiry charge of misconduct was proved against appellant, therefore, respondent had rightly dismissed him from service.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above according to charge sheet (Ex. P.1) the allegation against the appellant is that he was habitual absentee from duty and that he attended duty late for seven days in two months (January 1997 and February 1997). Admittedly he was appointed on 16.9.1984 but he remained absent only in 1997. So it is clear that earlier to that there was no complaint against him about absence from duty or late attendance. As such in the circumstances of the case punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh. Standing Order 15(2) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 reads as under:-- "A workman found guilty of misconduct shall be liable to any of the following punishments:--
(i) fine in the manner prescribed under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 (V of 1936) up to three paisa in the, rupee of the wages payable to him in a month; (ii)Withholding of increment or promotion for a specified period not exceeding one year; (iii)Reduction to a lower post; or (iv)Dismissal without payment of any compensation in lieu of notice".
So it is clear from the aforesaid provisions that maximum penalty is dismissal from service. As stated earlier, in the circumstances of this case, punishment of dismissal was not proper. In my opinion withholding of increment for one year is proper and it would meet the ends of justice. Even otherwise as4 mentioned above the appellant has relinquished his back benefits.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside, grievance petition brought by appellant is accepted and he is reinstated into service without back benefits. No order as to costs..