PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. Versus SHERIN KHAN

This appeal has been filed to call in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 23‑2‑1991 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereby the respondent was held to be in service till the date on which the liquidation of appellant company commenced. He was also held entitled to all back benefits and wages.

2. The factual aspect of this case is that the petitioner was working as Assistant Accountant in the Finance Department of the appellant and having taken keen interest in the betterment of the workers he was elected as President of the CBA and subsequently he became the Chairman of Mazdoor Union. It is alleged that, thereafter, differences arose between him and the employer and he was dismissed from service He moved the Labour Court for his reinstatement and resultantly his grievance petition No. 29/88 was accepted on 30‑5‑1990 and his reinstatement in service was ordered. After remaining in service for some time he was again served with the following charge‑sheet on 6‑2‑1988:‑‑

"You alongwith Mr. Javed Khan, Finisher, Token No. 3298 and Mr. Abdul Saleem Khan, Tester, T. No. 3069 while entering the mill through Time Office Gate on 27‑1‑1988 at 10‑00 hours misbehaved with Security Officer, used foul language and tried to attack on him for beating when he stopped Mr. Abdul Saleem Khan, Tester, Token No. 3069 that he could not enter the Mill as he is suspended from the service."

It was, thereafter, alleged against him that he wilfully absented himself from duty from 10‑2‑1988 to 20‑2‑1988 and thus rendered himself liable for misconduct under Standing Orders Ordinance 15(3) and accordingly another charge‑sheet dated 29‑2‑1988 was issued against him. A panel comprising of three Enquiry Officers was appointed to look into the allegations against the respondent and to submit the report. They held the respondent guilty of the charges and accordingly the Managing Director vide order dated 2‑7‑1990 dismissed him from service.

3. I heard the learned counsel for both the sides and. went through the record.

'4. It could not be denied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the previous petition of the respondent was accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that neither the charge‑sheet had been served nor the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the employer and thus the dismissal having been found in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance was set aside. It is amazing to note that the same authority i.e. Manager Administration had again issued the charge‑sheet and appointed the Enquiry Officers. The learned counsel for the appellant was practically unable to defend his client in this respect. It is I thus manifest that the mandatory provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance have been violated. Accordingly the learned Labour Court was correct to declare the dismissal order as illegal being violative of the imperative provisions of law.

5. I find no merit in this appeal and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./155/Lb.N Appeal dismissed.