' In this appeal the decision dated 28-4-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a Lifter in the respondent establishment. He was dismissed from service on 7- 10-1978. A charge-sheet was given to him on 31-8-1978 on the allegation that he had disobeyed the order of Ch.Sardar Ahmad, Deputy Plant Manager and had insulted him. The appellant gave reply to the charge-sheet on 4-9-1978. An enquiry notice was also served upon him, but he did not participate in the enquiry and sent an application for leave attaching to it a medical certificate.
The leave application is Exh.D-4 and the medical certificate Exh.D-5. The leave was refused. Since the appellant did not join the enquiry, he was proceeded against ex parte.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no intimation regarding the rejection of leave application was sent to the appellant. It appears that the very leave application was sent as a plea not to join the enquiry. The date of enquiry was 18-9-1978 and on the said date the application for leave was sent by registered post. The appellant must have realised that the leave application which was being sent by registered post could not in all probabilities reach the competent authority on the same day. The application was received on 20-9-1978 whereas the enquiry had been completed on 18-9-1978. Even if it be said that the appellant had in reality fallen ill, he should have delivered leave application personally and received the receipt. The appellant had given an application for changing the Enquiry Officer also, but as observed by the learned trial Judge it was duly considered and was rejected. The ground on which the request for changing the Enquiry Officer was made, was that he was subordinate to the General Manager. It means that the appellant wanted that some officer above the rank of the General Manager should be appointed as .Enquiry Officer. This request cannot be said to be genuine. Since the Deputy Plant Manager was the complainant in the case, therefore, an officer above his rank to be appointed as Enquiry. Officer and not necessarily some officer above the rank of the General Manager. The contention of the appellant was not that the Finance Manager, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, was below the rank of the Deputy Plant Manager. So the request for changing the Enquiry Officer was rightly not acceded to.
4. However there is a serious defect for which the enquiry and dismissal order based Upon it were vitiated. The appellant had requested for changing the Enquiry Officer. The application was rejected but timely information was not given to the appellant. The order of rejection is dated 13-8- 1978. The order was conveyed to the appellant on 31-8-1978. By the same order by which the application for changing the Enquiry Officer was rejected, the next date of enquiry was fixed on 31- 8-1978. Since the appellant was informed about the date of the enquiry on the same day on which the enquiry was held there is no time for the appellant to ask for the appointment of some representatives to help him in the enquiry and to prepare the case. On account of this defect the appellant was deprived of the opportunity of proper defence and was prejudiced. He could do nothing but not to appear in the enquiry for which he had no preparation due to the undue haste made by the management by informing the appellant about the new date of the enquiry on the same day on which the enquiry was started. The dismissal order based upon such an enquiry is not sustainable.
5. As a result of the discussion made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned Labour Court and dismissal order, direct the reinstatement of the appellant. However, since not on merits but on a technical defect the appellant has succeeded, he is not entitled to back benefits.