HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- The appellant-department has filed the instant appeal before this Court against judgment dated 2-6-2009 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and reinstated the respondent/petitioner in service without back-benefits.
2. The brief facts of the instant case are that petitioner was Appointed in WAPDA-department as Meter Reader on 28-5-1995 against a permanent post. He was dismissed from service on the charge of tempering 900 Units of electricity and receiving an illegal gratification amounting to Rs,2000. against his dismissal order dated 12-11-1999, thereafter on 13-2-2009 respondent/petitioner filed grievance petition. It is alleged in the grievance petition that he performed his duty honestly and diligently with full zeal and devotion to the entire satisfaction of his superior officeRs, No complaint was lodged against respondent/ petitioner. It is alleged in the grievance petition in July, 1999 respondent No,5 leveled a false allegation on the respondent/petitioner for taking illegal gratification of Rs,2000 from one Khurshid Ahmed for reversion. Of his Electric Meter and explanation letter dated 15-7-1999 was issued. The respondent/petitioner replied the same and rebutted all the allegations. Respondent No,5 issued final show-cause notice dated 20-10-1999 which was properly replied. Vide order dated 12-11-1999 respondent/petitioner was removed from service without holding any domestic enquiry. Firstly respondent/petitioner assailed removal from service order dated 12-11-1999 before Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 16-10- 2002 due to lack of jurisdiction and directed the respondent/ petitioner to approach Federal Service Tribunal. Respondent/petitioner filed appeal against order dated 16-10-2000 before Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No,1, Lahore, which subsequently was abolished, appeal was transmitted by Hon'ble High Court, Multan Bench. Respondent/petitioner spent time in the litigation before Hon'ble High Court. It is also alleged in grievance petition that in a similar placed Hafiz Muhammad Javaid was also removed from service. He was reinstated in service with back-benefits, under principle of consistency, respondent/ petitioner was also entitled for same relief. It is alleged in the grievance petition that no proper domestic enquiry was conducted to I find-out truth of the allegations levelled against the respondent/ petitioner.
3. The MEPCO-department filed written statement before Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan and raised many preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability of grievance petition, estoppel, lack of cause of action, approaching of court by the respondent with unclean hands and mis- joinder/non-joinder of parties. On facts, the contents of the petition were rebutted.
4. Learned Trial Court recorded evidence of both the parties. The respondent/petitioner-Arshad Aziz appeared in Court as PW-1 and tendered documents i,e, affidavit Exh.P-1, Copy of office order dated 30-7-1995 Exh.P-2, copy of relieving order dated 26-6-1989 Exh.P-3, copy of explanation letter dated 15-7-1999 Exh.P-4, copy of final show cause notice dated 20-10-1999 Exh.P-5, copy of order dated 12-11-1999 Exh.P-6, copy of departmental appeal against impugned order dated 12-11-1999 Exh.P-7, Original affidavit of Khursheed son of Allauddin Exh.P-8, Another original affidavit of Khursheed son of Allauddin Exh.P-9, copy of order dated 16-10-2000 Exh.P-10, Copy of appeal before Hon'ble High Court dated 24-4-2006 in F.A.O. No,76 of 2005 Exh.P-12, copy of letter dated 9-8-2006 by the respondent No,3 Exh.P-13, copy of grievance notice dated 29-1-2009 Exh.P-14 Exh.P-14/1 to Exh.P-14/4 in support of contentions of grievance petition. On the other hand RW-1 Muhammad Saleem Khan, Deputy Manager (Operation), Ahmadpur East, MEPCO and tendered documents i,e, Explanation letter dated 15-7-99 Exh.R-1, Relieving order dated 26-6-2009 Exh.R-2, Office order dated 22-7-99 Exh.R-3, Memo. Of dated 2-9-99 Exh.R-4, copy of reply dated 21-9-99, Exh.R-5, copy of letter dated 20-10-99 Exh.R-6, copy of order dated 12-11-1999 Exh.R-7, and copy of letter dated 1-5-2000 Exh.R-8.
5. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan accepted the grievance petition of the respondent/petitioner. The relevant Para of the judgment dated 2-6-2009 is reproduced below:--- "In my view, this should be according to the nature of the act. So, I set-aside the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is reinstated in service, but without back benefits. However, the seniority, annual increment, fixation and re-fixation of pay etc. Will be available to him. The grievance petition in hand is disposed of accordingly." Hence the instant appeal filed before this Court."
6. Learned counsel for appellant contends that impugned judgment dated 2-6-2009 is against law and facts of the case which is not maintainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel submits that oral as well as documentary evidence produced before learned Trial Court through which allegation were proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Further respondent/petitioner has confessed all the allegations. Learned counsel submits that Assistant Manager (Operation), Sub-Division finalized the disciplinary action and removed the respondent/petitioner from service on 12-11-1999. Learned counsel further submitted that grievance petition was badly time-barred, Learned Presiding Officer did not apply judicious mind to the facts of the case and impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.
7. Learned counsel for respondent/petitioner submits that no proper domestic enquiry was held to probe the allegations, the respondent/ petitioner was a regular employee and frivolous allegations were leveled against respondent/petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent/ petitioner further submitted that respondent/petitioner is discrimination as in the similar position Hafiz Muhammad Javaid was also removed from service on the similar charges. He was reinstated with all back- benefits. Discriminated is not permissible under the law, appeal of the department be dismissed.
He fully supported the judgment of Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the learned trial court minutely.
9. The perusal of the file of the Labour Court reveals that proceedings of regular domestic enquiry are not on the file which is missing. The stance of the respondent/petitioner appears correct that no impartial enquiry was held to prove allegation accepting of Rs,2000 affidavit of one Khursheed is also on the file who has also exonerated respondent/ petitioner from the charge of reversing electricity meter. As far as question of limitation is concerned respondent/petitioner firstly filed petition before Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench and he spent much time there. He also filed grievance petition before Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan which was dismissed vide order dated 16-10-2000 on account of lack of jurisdiction. The respondent/petitioner also knocked the door of High Court as that time appeal was provided before Hon'ble High Court in Industrial Relations Act, 2002. While on appeal, direction was issued to Labour Court to decide the grievance petition on merits. Further discrimination is not permitted in law, Hafiz Muhammad Javaid against whom similar allegation of tampering 'meter was leveled. He was removed from service.
Subsequently he was reinstated with all back-benefits. The facts of Hafiz Muhammad Javaid's case and Arshad Aziz are identical. Respondent/petitioner is also entitled for the same relief i,e, reinstatement. Perusal of the judgment dated 2-6-2009 reveals that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment which is upheld and this appeal filed by MEPCO is dismissed with no order as to costs.
THE END