The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 27-4-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, IV, Faisalabad whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegations made against the respondent are contained in charge-sheet copy of which is Exh. P-2. The first charge is that he remained absent from duty from 5-6-1983 to 14-6-1983, on 15-6- 1983, 15-6-1983 to 16-6-1983, 26-6-1983, from 27-6-1983 to 11-7-1983, 3-8-1983, 13-8-1983 and 25-8- 1983. The second charge is that he had quarrelled with one Mr. Nazir Ahmed an account-holder on 2-8-1983 who had approached him for getting the currency notes exchanged. A plea was taken in the grievance petition that the charge-sheet was issued by the incompetent authority. According to the Rules, Head of the Zones are competent to issue charge-sheet and appoint Enquiry Officers in respect of the employees belonging to category II, but in the present case the Vice-President had issued the charge-sheet. There is no evidence that he was the Zonal Head. So far as the dismissal order is concerned, the original order was not produced by any of the parties. Exh. P-3 does not show that it was passed by the Regional Head whose signatures appear but it 'says that the competent authority had dismissed the respondent. The name and the designation of the competent authority are not given. Anyhow, the respondent should have produced the order of dismissal to support his plea that the authority who had passed it was not competent. Since Exh. P- 3 dismissal order suggests that not the officer who signed it but some other competent authority had passed, it cannot be said that it was passed by an incompetent authority.
3. There is no evidence about the issuance of the second show-cause notice. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no such provision in the Wage Commission Award. The argument has no force. Sub-para (5) of paragraph No, 258 provides that after an enquiry is completed, copy of the enquiry report is to be sent to the employer alongwith the statement of the employee concerned. The statement referred to in sub-para No, (5) is not the reply to the charge- sheet or any statement recorded during the enquiry, because it is necessary to send such statements inasmuch as the employer has to decide the matter after perusing the record.
Everything is on the record except any statement made by the respondent after the enquiry report is prepared. So the statement mentioned in sub-para. (5) is that statement which is recorded after issuing copy of the enquiry report to him. The issuance of the copy of the report is necessary because without knowing the contents of the report, the employee concerned is not in a position to give its reply. It is thus clear that after the enquiry report is completed, copy of which is to be supplied to the employee concerned, and his statement is taken thereafter the enquiry report and the statement so made by the person concerned are sent to the employer. Thus recording of statement is necessary. In the present case this was not done, therefore, the respondent was condemned unheard.
4. Evidence of only one prosecution witness was recorded and there is a note that the statement had been read over to the respondent but he had deposed that he did not want to put any cross- question. But on grounds mentioned above the impunged order is justified and there is no scope to interfere with it.
5. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.