PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Public Works Department, Government of Punjab, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a decision by the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding the termination of a work-charged employee. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the termination of the respondent, purportedly based on unauthorized absence from duty, was legally sustainable when the employee was not afforded an opportunity to explain his position. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the termination order was flawed because the respondent was denied the right to substantiate his case regarding his alleged absence. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding no illegality in the lower court's decision to set aside the termination. The key principle laid down is that even for work-charged employees, the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and the requirement to provide an opportunity to explain one's conduct before termination, must be strictly observed by the employer to ensure the validity of such disciplinary actions.
- Is a work-charged employee entitled to an opportunity to explain their absence before termination?
- Does the termination of a work-charged employee for absence without a hearing violate principles of natural justice?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 28-8-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Writ Petition No,19800 of 2002 filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 22-5-2000 of the learned Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent was a work-charged employee and according to the terms of his employment, his services were liable to be terminated automatically on the expiry of the period mentioned in his appointment letter.
3. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is without force as the reason given for the respondents termination in his absence from duty with effect from 4-3-1996 as reflected from the impugned order of termination dated 2-4-1996. However, he was not provided any opportunity whatsoever to substantiate his case qua his absence. No illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in passing the impugned judgment which may warrant interference by this Court.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.