DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dated 15-10-1990, whereby grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sadiq Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The appellant was admittedly working as a Supervisor with the respondents when he is alleged to have misappropriated about Rs,80,000 of the respondents for which F.I.R. Was lodged with police on 24-5-1988. The appellant was also charge-sheeted for the alleged act of misconduct on 23-5- 1988, which charge-sheet was withdrawn vide order, dated 30-7-1988 on the ground that it was of issued by the competent person. Another charge-sheet was issued with regard to the same misconduct on 7-7-1989 which is said to have been served upon the appellant on 7-8-1989. In the domestic enquiry the appellant was found guilty and was therefore dismissed vide order, dated 6- 2-1989. The appellant served grievance notice upon the respondents, but failing to get any redress, filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari raised the plea that the appellant was not workman, therefore Labour Court had no jurisdiction. I find that the learned Labour Court had held the appellant to be workman, against which finding no appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the respondents.
This finding therefore attained finality under section 37(4) of I.R.O., 1969. 1, therefore, need not discuss this plea of the respondents.
5. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari has also raised plea that the appellant was dismissed by Administrative Personnel Manager, Islamabad, therefore Labour Court Sukkur had no jurisdiction.
Admittedly the appellant was working in the Utility Store at Panno Aqil when he is alleged to have committed the misconduct, for which his order of termination was passed. It is not disputed that the Panno AO' is within the jurisdiction of Labour Court Sukkur. As such mere fact, that the Head Office of the respondents from where the dismissal order was issued, was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court would not take away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
Furthermore, this objection was not specifically raised before the learned Labour Court and therefore it has not been considered by the Labour Court in the impugned order.
6. The main contention of Mr. Manzar Alam is that the charge-sheet is time-barred and therefore the dismissal of the appellant was barred under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Standing Order 15(4) may be reproduced as under:- "(4) No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and, the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workmen.
' Provided"
7. Mr. Manzar Alam has relied upon number of decisions of this Tribunal and the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab in his support reported in 1990 PLC 298 and 451, 1989 PLC 225 and 1004; 1987 PLC 638 and 1977 PLC 708.
8. The learned Labour Court has, however, held that the misconduct was brought to the knowledge of the appellant within one month vide charge-sheet dated 23-5-1988 and therefore the issuance of formal charge-sheet, dated 7-7-1988 would not vitiate the proceedings. In this connection, learned Labour Court has relied upon the decision reported in 1980 PLC 620.
9. No doubt the misconduct was brought to the notice of the appellant in the instant case on 23-5- 1988 which would be within the prescribed period, but this charge-sheet had been withdrawn vide letter, dated 30-7-1988. After its withdrawal this charge-sheet cannot be used for any purpose and it cannot be pleaded that through this charge-sheet the misconduct was brought to the notice of the appellant and therefore charge-sheet, dated 7-7-1989 was mere formality and would not be hit by Standing Order 15(4) of the Ordinance. The charge-sheet, dated 7-7-1988 is apparently beyond the prescribed period. The dismissal order also shows that the appellant was dismissed in pursuance of enquiry held against the appellant on the charges levelled in the charge-sheet dated 7-7-1988. The case reported in 1980 PLC 620 is distinguishable from the instant case as in the reported case, though formal charge-sheet was framed after the prescribed period but within the prescribed period the workman was informed in writing about misconduct and this writing in the first instance was not withdrawn by the employer. As already pointed in the instant case the first charge-sheet had been withdrawn by the respondents and even the Enquiry Officer has not considered this charge-sheet, dated 23-5-1988 to be intimation to the appellant with regard to his alleged misconduct.
10. The charge-sheet apparently being time-barred the dismissal order in pursuance of this charge-sheet is liable to be set aside. The appellant is therefore ordered to be reinstated. The payment of back benefits to him would be dependent upon the result of the criminal case, which is still pending against the appellant. This order would also not debar the respondents from passing any fresh order on the basis of the decision of the Criminal Court, if the appellant is found guilty.
The order to be implemented within one month.