MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus SENIOR PERSONNEL MANAGER, F.F.C.LTD RAWALPINDI

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 27‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant for which he was dismissed was that he charged medical bills of another girl describing her as his own daughter. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that the Resident Manager who issued the charge‑sheet, enquiry notice and dismissal order was not competent as there is no evidence of his appointment as Factory Manager. He has argued that not only that no order of deputing the Resident Manager as Factory Manager had been produced but even no copy of the intimation of such appointment sent to the Inspector of Factories was produced. It has also been argued that the, appellant was taken in service by the Senior Personnel Manager, Rawalpindi, therefore, only he was competent to issue the charge‑sheet, appoint enquiry officer and pass dismissal order. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the written statement no such plea was taken that the Resident Manager had not beep deputed as Factory Manager and that no such intimation 1v‑is issued to the Inspector of factories. The grievance petition has been perused. In reality no such plea was taken in it. In para No.5 of the grievance petition it is pleaded that the Resident Manager had no powers to appoint or dismiss any worker, therefore, he was not an employer It is not necessary that only that officer who can appoint or dismiss comes within the definition of 'employer' but it is necessary that the officer who passed the dismissal order should come in the definition of employer and should be competent to dismiss. The appellant did not come in the witness box. Some other person was examined as witness but not as his attorney, therefore, whatever the said witness said he did not say on behalf of the appellant. Whatever, PW‑1 stated was rebutted by RW 1 who stated that Resident Manager was the Factory Manager. If specific plea had been taken in the grievance petition in this behalf, the respondent may have brought on the record the orders by which the Resident Manager had been appointed as Factory Manager and the intimation of it had been sent to the Inspector of Factories. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the copy of the order of the appointment of Resident Manager as Factory Manager has been produced in another case. This is not an admitted fact that he was not appointed as Factory Manager. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellate also is without force, that since the dismissal order was got approved from the head office, therefore, the Resident Manager had no authority to pass such an order. Taking of approval from the head office cannot be a basis to say that the authority passing the dismissal order was not competent. Since the extreme penalty of dismissal was being passed approval may have been taken. The charge‑sheet was rightly issued and the enquiry officer was rightly appointed by the Resident Manager. The appellant failed to prove by either coming' himself in the witness box or by producing some documentary evidence, that the Resident Manager was not competent.

3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed

A.E. /474/Lb.P Appeal dismissed