This is an appeal against the decision, dated 13-6-1978 of Punjab Labour Court No.1 Lahore.
2. Muhammad Shafiq, appellant was appointed as Conductor at Ichhra Depot, in L.O.S. On 21-11- 1974, when it was under the control of Punjab Road Transport Board Punjab Urban Transport Corporation came into existence from 1-2-1977. On 18-6-1977, the appellant's bus was checked at Chauburji Terminus and it was found that five lady passengers, who were in the act of leaving the bus after completion of their journey, had not been issued tickets in spite of the fact that the fare had been realised from them by the appellant. The charge-sheet, Exh. D.1, dated 18-6-1977 was issued to the appellant, who submitted his reply Exh.D.2, dated 18-8-1977 to the effect that due to rush of passengers, the tickets could not be issued. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and so an enquiry was instituted against him. He participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report is Exh.
D.6, dated 28-12-1977. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and so second show-cause notice, Exh.D.7, dated 12-1-1978 was issued to the appellant and thereafter, he was dismissed from service vide order, Exh. D-:8, dated 2-2-1978. The appellant after serving grievance notice, EXh.P.1, filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 26-4-1978 before the Labour Court , which dismissed the same vide decision in appeal.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision Muhammad Shafiq, appellant preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel besides challenging the findings of the Labour Court on merits, contended that the charge-sheet was delivered to the appellant on 17-8-1977, which was after one month and as such was in violation of Standing Order 16(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, because according to which charge-sheet had to be served within one month of the alleged misconduct. He had also taken up this plea not only in the grievance notice, but also in his petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1989, wherein it had been categorically stated that the charge-sheet had been served after the expiry of statutory period i.e. One month. In his statement before the Labour Court , the appellant took the same stand.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the charge-sheet was delivered to the appellant on 18-6-1977 and as such was not in contravention of Standing Order 15(4). He referred to the statements of two witnesses namely, Yousuf Nasir, Clerk in the Operation Branch of P. U. T. C. Ichhra Depot and Muhammad Aslam, Duty Clerk. Yousuf Nasir stated before the Labour Court that the charge-sheet of the appellant was entered in his register at S.No. 597, dated 18-6-1977 and that according to the said entry, the charge-sheet was handed over to the Duty Clerk on the same day. Muhammad Aslam, Duty Clerk stated that he had received the charge-sheet on 18-6-1977 and handed over to the appellant personally. He also stated that he had made an entry in his Dak- register on 22-6-1977 to the effect that after obtaining signature of the appellant in token of the receipt of the charge-sheet, he had sent the register back to the Operation Branch. He did not produce either the receipt-back or the original receipt, bearing the signature of the appellant that he had received the charge-sheet. For the following reasons, I find that it was not correct that the charge-sheet was delivered to the appellant on 18-6-1977:-
(1) That the misconduct was alleged to have been committed on 18-6-1977.
(2) That on the same day, the Checker prepared the report against the appellant.
(3) That on the same day, the District Manager ordered that the charge-sheet should be issued to the appellant.
(4) That on the same day, charge-sheet was prepared and that on the same day, it was delivered to the appellant.
6.This is not possible, because every thing could not have been done on the same day, i.e. On 18-6- 1977: It shows that the respondent had not come with clean hands. Further according to the charge-sheet, the appellant was required to give his reply within three days but in A this case, the reply was given on 18-8-1977, i.e. After two months. If the reply was not given within three days ex parte enquiry would have started against the appellant or some other reminders would have been sent, but this has not been done.
7. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the charge-sheet though, dated 18-6-1977 was delivered to the appellant on 17-8-1977, which is beyond one month and as such was in contravention of Standing Order 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968.
8. In view of the above, the enquiry proceedings against the appellant were invalid and as such the order of dismissal was in violation of law.
9. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Lahore Court and direct that the appellant be reinstated with back benefits.