1. DECISION This is an appeal against the order dated, 30th October 1973, of the Learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dismissing the petition of Manzoor Hussain, workman brought under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter mentioned the Ordinance, for the redress of the grievance of his dismissal from service on account of wilful negligence in the performance of his job resulting in the damage of the property of the respon--dent Management.
2. The original petition was first decided by the learned Lower Court on 17th May 1973 and the order dismissing the petition was set aside and case remanded for fresh decision in the light of the enquiry proceedings of the Management to be brought on record vide appellate orders, dated 1st Septem--ber 1973. The order was impugned in this appeal to hold the enquiry made by the Management as valid and unexceptionable and as such not to be inter--fered with.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. It is worthy of note that the appellant was charged under S. O. 15(3)(f ) of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1958, hereinafter mentioned the Standing Orders Ordin- -ance, which, in fact, pertains to habitual late attendance and not neglect of work or any wilful damage caused to the property of the employer. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that the mistake in the charge was a clerical mistake and otherwise the charge according to the allegation must be read to have been framed under Standing Order 15 (3) (e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance which clause reads as follows :-
(a) Wilful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property. But throughout the evidence on record there is nothing to show that the damage done to the material was wilful and deliberate. All what is against the appellant relates to his habitual carelessness in dealing with the material of his work while performing his job. This may be term--ed as negligence or inefficiency on the part of the worker for which he was not charged even if clause (f) be read as clause (c) in the charge which is otherwise not there. Wilful damage to the property involves the intention to harm the interests of the employer under some ulterior routine which is missing from the evidence in toto.
4. The Court at its own examined the case in the light of the charge under section 15(3) (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance in view of the evidence on record which reads as follows :-
(i) Habitual negligence or neglect of work. But the aforesaid clause is neither mentioned in charge- sheet in' its title nor in the body of the charge by way of substantial allegations against the appellant. I therefore follows that the proper charge was not given to the appellant to be met by him and any assumption in this behalf against him must have prejudiced him in his defence.
5. The Punjab Labour Court had remanded the case vide its order dated 1st September 1973, because the enquiry proceedings were not sought on the record of the learned Lower Court. These proceedings when brought on record show that no valid charge-sheet was given to the appellant and he was clearly prejudiced in the enquiry. This being the position, the impu--gned order is set aside and appeal being accepted the appellant is directed to be re-instated within a period of 15 days. He will however not be entitled to any back benefits in view of the damage of goods suffered by the respondent assumably at his hands under some circumstances or the other. The file may be consigned.