' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 5-5-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service. On behalf of the respondent cross-objections have been filed which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.
2. The appellant was an messenger. The allegation for which he was dismissed was that he had tampered with his bill for the charge of urine test amounting to Rs,6 changing the amount into Rs,526 and withdrew the amount of Rs,290 that was passed. The charge-sheet is Exh.P.1 and its reply is Exh.P.2. The appellant took the position in reply Exh.P.2 that he had submitted the bill for Rs,526 from the very beginning.
3. So for as the allegation made against the appellant is concerned, it stands proved. He in reply to the charge-sheet admitted that the bill was for Rs,526 and at the same time said that he did not know that it was false. He proposed to refund the amount if the bill was being considered false.
Almost same kind of statement was made by him before the enquiry officer in defence. In Bill Exh.
R.7 Rs,120 as B.C.(G.W.) charges, Rs,80 as donation, Rs,120 was X-rays charges Rs,6 as laboratory charges and Rs,200 as operation charges are mentioned. The bill is of Mian Mohammad Hospital.
The report of the said hospital is on the enquiry file. According to this report, only Rs,6 were charged.
This amount may be of laboratory test. Since the remaining charges were not certified, it is evident that they were not charged by the said hospital and were falsely entered in the bill by or at the instance of the appellant.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge-sheet was given by the branch Manager who was not competent. The argument is not without force. According to para. 258 (4) of the first Wage Commission Award, explanation can be called by the competent authority. The term 'competent authority' is not defined in the said award. This being so, at the best only this much can be said that 'competent authority' is that who either appointed the appellant or who was competent to punish him. No appointment letter is on the file to show as to who appointed the appellant. The appointment order must be in the record of the respondent but it was not produced. Since the respondent took action against the appellant, the onus was upon it to show that the authority who gave the charge-sheet was competent. So far as dismissing authority is concerned, the dismissal order was passed by the Zonal Head so only he could charge-sheet the appellant. The charge-sheet was thus not given by the competent authority. The appellant belongs to category-III. According to M.C.B. Staff Service Rules of 1981, Appendix I clause (12) , Zonal Heads are competent to punish employees belonging to category-III. The dismissal order was passed by the Zonal Head, so there is no defect in the same.
5. In the cross-objections the plea taken is that the learned lower Court has wrongly held that the grievance notice and the grievance petition are not time-barred. In case where departmental appeal is preferred, the cause of grievance arises on the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant had lodged departmental appeal, copy of which is Exh.P.6/ R.13. Reminder of the appeal is Exh.P.7.
Postal receipt is Exh.P.8 and A/D receipt is Exh.P.9. No reply to the appeal has been brought on the file by the respondent. Since either the appeal was not decided or its result was not conveyed to the appellant, no period of limitation started, running. So the grievance notice and the grievance petition have been rightly declared by the learned lower Court as within time. The remaining objections stand replied in this judgment.
6. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the dismissal order, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. He is not entitled to back benefits as he has succeeded only due to the fact that the charge-sheet was given by an incompetent authority.