The present appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 25.03.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. VIII, Bahawalpur whereby a grievance petition made by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant made the grievance petition under Section 33 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 read with the provisions of Standing Orders, Ordinance, 1968 seeking his reinstatement in service on the ground that he while serving as LM-II was issued a show-cause notice on 16.10.2008 on fake charges and without regular inquiry a major punishment for compulsorily retirement has been imposed upon him vide order dated 29.11.2008. He preferred a departmental appeal against the said order which was also dismissed on 31.03.201 1 illegally .
3. The grievance petition was contested by the respondents and it was contended that the appellant was involved in the illegal installation of a tubewell connection with burnt Meter No. 11785/ TOD/PEL & 10KV A transformer No. LPK-20580778 at premises of one Athar Javed. He was issued a show-cause notice and in reply thereof he admitted that he installed connection on the directions of his officers. After fulfilling all the codel formalities the penalty of compulsorily retirement was imposed upon him. He immediately made a petition for grant of pension which was allowed and he received all the pensionary benefits. He did not prefer any departmental appeal.
Preliminary objection was also raised in the written reply regarding the petition being filed without locus standi and being barred by limitation.
4. The petition was returned vide order dated 10.10.2012 for presenting it proper forum i.e. NIRC at Lahore.
However , the appeal was accepted and petition was remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding it on merits.
5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the grievance petition, hence the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a major penalty of compulsorily retirement was imposed on the appellant without holding inquiry , therefore the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in service but the learned trial Court has not appreciated this aspect of the case and has dismissed the grievance petition erroneously .
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice has admitted the alleg ation levelled against him that he installed illegal connection of tubewell with illegal and unauthorized material at the premises of one Athar Javed but alleged that he did so on the orders of his superiors but could not substantiate his defence, therefore the competent authority has imposed the penalty of compulsorily retirement from service in accordance with law. It was further 'contended that immediately after receiving the impugned order of compulsorily retirement the appellant made petition to the department for the payment of his dues and pensionary benefits which were paid to him, thereafter he forged a copy of departmental appeal and made a writ petition before the honourable High Court wherein a direction was given to the Respondents No. 1 & 3 of the writ petition (Ex.P .5) to decide the representation if any pending before them.
Consequently the appellant was summoned and heard and his representation was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.201 1 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that no appeal has been preferred by the appellant before the appellate authority and he has been heard in the honour of the order of the honourable High Court dated 31.03.201 1.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the available record minutely .
9. Admittedly , the appellant while serving as LM-II installed a tubewell connection at the premises of Athar Javed, a show-cause notice. (Ex.P .1) was' served upon the appellant along-with the stateme nt of allegation. According to the statement of allegation, the appellant was involved in installation of illegal material and unauthorized running tubewell connection with 10KV A Transformer No. LPK-20580778 lii burnt Meter No. 11785/T OD/ PEL, against the Application No. 837 dated 06.04.2006 at the premises of Athar Javed. Admittedly , the appellant submitted the reply of the show-cause notice (Ex.P .2) wherein he admitted that he installed the said connection but in obedience to the directions of high-ups and he had no knowledge that it was legal or illegal connection. The competent authority after receiving the reply of show-cause notice and hearing the appellant imposed major penalty of retirement from service vide order dated 29.11.2008. Thereafter , the appellant made a petition (Ex.R.5) dated 16.12.2008 for grant of pensionary benefits and the appellan t while appearing as Pw-1 has admitted that he has received all the pensioary benefits and is also receiving monthly pension.
10. The appellant has placed on record a copy of departmental appeal (Ex.P .4) which was allegedly made on 22.12.2008 bin, it does not bear signature of any official of the department who received it and no postal receipt has been submitted that whether it was sent through post. Apparently , this departmental appeal is barred by limitation. Thereafter , the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1142/201 1 (Ex.P .5) before the honourable High Court seeking a direction to the respondents for deciding the departmental appeal without further delay wherein the honourable High Court vide order dated 03.03.201 1 directed the Respondents No. 1 & 2 of the said writ petition to decide the appeal if pending before them within a period of six weeks. Super intending Engineer (Operation)
'MEPCO Circle Rahimyarkhan summoned the appellant in the light of order of the honourable High Court and heard the appellant, he has observed in Paragraph No. 3 of the order (Ex.P .7) that no appeal was preferred against the above mentioned decision of the ex-employee, he accepted the decision and requested through application dated 16.12.2008 for processing the pension case/ dues etc and as per rules the following payments have been made to the ex-employee:-- a. Gratuity: Rs. 402949/- b. G.P . Fund:- Rs. 40643/- c. Monthly Pension is being paid to him regularly .
It was further mentioned in the said order , under the above circumstances, particularly his pension case/ dues etc, were processed on his application dated 16.12.2008 which is estoppel to reopen his case and he has received gratuity G.P fund (huge amount) and is also receiving the monthly pension regularly .
11. Abdul Ghani XEN Rw-1 has deposed that an inquiry was conducted against the appellant .by Aslam Javaid Deputy Manager MEPCO Multan, inquire report is Ex.R.3 and the appellant was found guilty according to the said report, then he was issued show-cause notice, the witness Rw-1 provided an opportunity of personal-hearing to the appellant and the appellant appeared before him and admitted his guilt whereupon he was compulsorily retired vide order Ex.R.4, this witness has not been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point that he admitted his guilt before Rw-1 during his personal hearing.
12. The appellant after receiving the order of his compulsorily retirement admittedly made a petition (Annexure-D) praying for the preparation of his pension papers and grant of pensionary benefits. He voluntarily made the said petition which was allowed and consequently he received all the pensionary benefits. According to the appellant, he preferred departmental appeal against the order dated 29.11.2008 but according to the respondents no such appeal was preferred even on the directions of the honourable High Court that if any departmental is pending before the competent authority be dispo sed of within a period of six weeks, the appellant was summoned and heard and the departmental appeal was decided. However , it clearly mentioned in the said order that no departmental appeal was pending before the appellate authority . Photo-copy of alleged departmental appeal ( Ex.
P.4) also revealed that the alleged departmental appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation.
13. In reply to show-cause notice and statement of allegation, the appellant had admitted that he installed the disputed tubewell connection.. Rw-1 has also categorically stated that the appell ant during the personal hearing before him admitted his guilt but was not cross-examined on this point, when the appellant has admitted his guilt.
Then there was no need to hold regular inquiry . The impugned penalty has rightly been imposed upon him. Alleged departmental appeal was also barred by limitation, therefore the grievance petition was also arrest by limitation.
14. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the learned trial Court are in accordance with law, the same are hereby maintained. The appeal is without merits, the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record- room after due completion. The trial Court's record be sent back immediately .