ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---- Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No.3, Ferozewala as well as the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the petitioner against this dismissal order dated 23.07.2013 was concurrently dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was employed in the Factory of respondents Nos.3 and 4 on 05.07.1993 and continued to work as regular employee until 06.07.2013 as Lab Attendant. During the said period he worked honestly , diligently and efficiently to the entire satisfaction of the respondents and had not given 'any opportunity of any complaint from any corner . Surprisingly , on 07.07.2013 when he came to his duty, he was stopped to enter the premises of the factory and a notice dated 06.07.2013, was handed over to him without any charge sheet stating that he habitually remained absent from duty in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. On 15.07.2013 after about seven days an inquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report on 23.07.2013 and on the same day he was dismissed from service without hearing. On 13.08.2013 the petitioner filed his grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.3 which was dismissed on 12.04.2016 While holding that the petitio ner had observed negligence as he remained habitually absent without leave. In the appeal filed by the petitio ner it was observed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner admitted his fault but did not mend his ways and the warning did not have any effect on his conduct and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.07.2016, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in extraordinary haste without considering the fact that he had been serving the factory for the last 20 yea s without any complaint. Adds that he was not allowed to defend himself and that the findings given in the inquiry report have not touched upon the allegations made against the petitioner , therefore, cannot be relied upon. Also submits that keeping in view over all case, the punishment is too harsh. Places reliance on case titled "Government of Pakistan through Director-General, Ministry of Interior , Islamabad and others v. Farheen Rashid" reported as 2011 SCMR 1 and case titled "Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan through Chairman and another v. Akif Javed " reported as 2005 SCMR 752 and prays for setting aside the impugned orders.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 submits that there is a history of the petitioner who continued to remain absent from duty as he is a rickshaw driver who worked at the night time and obviously could not perform his duty on the day time. He refers to the statement of the petitioner in which he has admitted this fact on the ground that he could not survive in the low salary which he received in the day time job. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not receive the notice but had admitted his guilt and promised to reform himself but he did not even appear before the committee.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Admittedly , the petitioner was a regular employee who was working since 05.07.1993 as Lab Attendant and after exactly 20 years he was issued a notice of absence from duty of certain days in the preceding three years. It was not specified as to whether these vacations were legally permissible or not and that whether the salary against those days would be deducted from the account of the petitioner . Interestingly , after seven days i.e. on 15.07.201.3 an inquiry committee was constituted who in its half page findings had not adverted to the period of absence or total number of days he has taken off without permission of the respondents. Even more interesting is the fact that on the day when inquiry report was submitted, the petitioner was dismissed from service without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. Undoubtedly , in the case of absence from duty an inquiry is not mandatory provision of law but when inquiry was conducted, it had to be aimed upon the precise allegation against the petitioner .
Punjab Labour Court as well as the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal while giving concurrent findings against the petitioner have also not taken, into account the reasons on which the petitioner was proceeded against in undue haste. Importantly , it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner had admitted his fault and promised that he would mend his ways but he did not. However , no time was granted to him to fulfil his promise, therefore, such conclusion is not based on evidence. Admittedly , the petitioner used to work for nominal sum salary at the day which was not suf ficient for him and that is why he had to work at the night time to meet his both ends.
7. In the case titled "Government of Pakistan through Director-General, Ministry of Interior , Islamabad and others v. Farheen Rashid" reported as 2011 SCMR 1 it was observed that the nature of allegation must be precise so as to enable the accused to defend himself. In the present case there is no such precision in allegation.
Relevant extract from the above referred judgment is reproduced as under:- "A charge-sheet is precise formulation of the specific accusation made against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the early stage. The object of the charge-sheet is to tell an accused as precisely or and concisely as possible the matter in which she is charged and must convey to her with sufficient clearances and certainty what the department intends to prove against her and of which she will have to clear herself during the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Service Tribunal did not advert to the contents of the charge-sheet, show-cause notice, inquiry report and dismissal order as the Inquiry Officer recommended for registration of criminal case against respondent with regard to recovery of stolen 8000 UAE Dirham of the complainant from respondent whereas the contents of the charge-sheet and show-cause did not contain such allegations."
8. In case titled "Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan through Chairman and another v. Akif Javed" reported as 2005 SCMR 752 it has been held that keeping in view the service of an employee, his dismissal order was termed into compulsory retirement as in the present case also past 20 years' service was, not taken into account while awarding harsh punishment.
9. Keeping in view the above discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed while modifying the dismissal order of the petitioner from service into compulsory retirement/removal from service.