DECISION This is an appeal filed by Syed Obaidullah Quadri, the appellant, against the impugned order, dated 14-4-1984, passed by Sind Labour Court No.III, Karachi, who has dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.0, 1969.
2. Briefly the facts are that on 5-3-1975, the appellant was appointed in the respondent establishment as Sub-Assistant Sub-Editor in Grade-III on a monthly salary of Rs.679. Subsequently, his salary was increased to Rs. 840 per month. In the appointment letter, dated 5-3-1975, the appellant was entrusted with the following specific duties: - ---(1) Translation of various advertisements and supplement articles as and when required.
(2) Maintenance of classified registers and proof reading work relating to classified Advertisements.
(3)To perform any other suitable job entrusted to you from time to time.--- The appellant was posted in Advertisement Section of the respondent establishment and when, in 1976, a new Advertisement Manager took over the charge, he did not like the appellant and instead of above written duties, the appellant was orally given the duties of Proof Reader, a lower grade post and in the interest of employment, the appellant continued to perform this duty. That, although the appellant was entrusted the work of Proof Reading of Display Advertisement only, yet, he was issued Memo. And charge-sheets for the translation work of others. However, on 19-2-1981, the appellant was issued a charge-sheet by the Chief Executive of the respondent establishment, for the charges which did not concern with the appellant work. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant on 1-3-1981, but, without adopting the legal procedure, the respondent establishment, vide letter dated 9-3-1981, had terminated the services of the appellant. The appellant had challenged this termination order before the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who by his order, dated 17-12-1981, had ordered the re-instatement of the appellant with full back benefits. The respondent establishment had impugned this order of the Labour Court before this Tribunal. My learned predecessor, vide his order, dated 12-3-1982, had up-held the order of re- instatement but, had modified the order of the Labour Court and had directed the respondent establishment that an enquiry could be initiated against the appellant within one month of the order and the back benefits were made dependant upon the result of the enquiry. Consequently, as a result of this enquiry, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and vide letter, dated 3-3- 1983, issued by the Chief Executive of the respondent establishment, the appellant was again dismissed from service. Once again, the appellant has challenged his dismissal order before the learned Labour Court, who by his impugned order, dated 14-4-1984 had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant holding the enquiry proceedings fair, impartial and properly conducted and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse or wrong.
3. The contentions of the respondent establishment are that no illegal action was taken against the appellant, as he never performed his duties carefully and efficiently. His Service Record is full of inefficient, careless, negligent and wasteful working. That the appellant was issued memos and show-cause notices for his negligent acts and omissions from time to time according to law requiring him to explain the defective publication of various advertisements and he always offered his regret by way of explanation. It is further contended that it is evident from record that the appellant was warned repeatedly to be careful in performance of his duties but he never took any notice and that due to his continuous negligent work his increments were withheld. It was further contended that for the advertisement of ---Aspro Nicholas Notice---, he caused a loss Rs.1,100 to the establishment, therefore, a penalty of Rs.1,100 was also imposed upon him. It was contended that all the actions taken against the appellant were disciplinary actions according to the Law and due to the justifiableness of these actions, none of them was challenged by the appellant at the relevant time, therefore, the allegation that memos and show-cause notices were served upon him for the work/job, not entrusted/ assigned to him, is incorrect and malicious. Lastly, it was contended that an enquiry was instituted against the appellant within a month from the date of the order of this Tribunal and that the Enquiry Officer had afforded full opportunity to the appellant for defending himself, as he attended the enquiry, cross examined the prosecution witnesses and produced his defence. Therefore, the dismissal of the appellant from service on the findings of the Enquiry Officer is just and proper.
4. I have heard the learned representative for the appellant, Mr. S.P. Londhi and Mr. Mazharuddin, learned Advocate for the respondent establishment, and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant has argued that there is a basic error committed by the respondent establishment in so far as the appellant was charged for such acts of misconduct which could not be attributed to him from the material on record of the enquiry proceedings as well as the evidence brought on record which is sufficient to prove that the appellant was not guilty of the alleged acts of misconduct. He further argued that the appellant after his appointment was put to work on translation from English matter into Urdu of the advertisement, but after sometime he assigned the job of proof reading only of the Display Advertisements from the translated material with the calligraphed material and the mistakes or blunders in the same were not of proof reading, but of translation. Further, had the appellant been assigned the Job of checking the translation by providing the original English matter, then, also he would have been guilty of the alleged misconduct, as the evidence on record, nowhere shows that all the three material were provided to him. Mr. Lodhi has contended that on the other hand, it is established from the record that the appellant was entrusted with the job of proof reading of the translated material with the calligraphed material only. In support of his arguments, Mr. Lodhi has referred to me the documents and passages from the statement of the prosecution witness, Mr. Warsi, the Advertisement Manager. In cross-examination, Syed Sabir Ali, the Enquiry Officer had stated that he did not remember if the appointment letter of the appellant was produced before him or he had seen it, during the enquiry proceedings. He also did not remember if any item of charge-sheet related to translation only, or to proof reading, or both had been produced before him, or that, he also did not remember, if the appellant had not translated the advertisements for which he has been charge-sheeted. This piece of evidence on behalf of the respondent establishment creates serious doubts as to how the appellant was found guilty of misconduct. To this, Mr. Mazharuddin, learned Advocate for the respondent establishment has failed to submit any argument, in rebuttal. Here, the evidence of Mir. Javed Rehman's, the Chief Executive A of the respondent establishment and who had also imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the appellant is very much material, as it clearly established from his statement and cross-examination, that he did not apply his mind and did not verify the facts and material on record, while concurring the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The relevant passages are as under: - ---I have mentioned the duties of the applicant in para. 5 of my affidavit, which are covered under para. 3 of the appointment letter which reads, to perform any other suitable job entrusted to him from time to time. I do not remember that in the year 1976 the applicant was assigned the work of proof reading only. I had perused all the documents and the enquiry papers. I do not remember if a separate written order was issued to the applicant that he was assigned the work of translation and proof reading of the calligraphic translated matters with the original English script. It was for the Advertisement Manager to do so I had obtained this information from the Advertisement Manager and it was not on the basis of any document seen by me I am shown document at pages 275 and 278 of the enquiry proceeding. They are part of the enquiry proceeding and relate to the charge-sheet pertaining to the PIDC. I do not remember if the original English script of the said document was seen by me. I am also shown document at pages 277 and 281 of the enquiry proceedings. They had come under may perusal. I do not remember if I say the original English script of any of the items mentioned in the charge-sheet was produced before me or shown to me.---
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that from the material on record, it is established that the appellant was not responsible for the omissions/mistakes/blunders, as alleged against him in the charge-sheet, on the basis of which he was dismissed from service by the respondent establishment. The impugned order of the learned Labour Court is, therefore, set aside. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service forthwith but, without back benefits. The appeal is allowed accordingly.