FUJICOLOR PAKISTAN LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus NADEEM IQBAL KHAN
The appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 23‑8‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby Nadeem Iqbal Khan (hereinafter called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits, holding that Messrs Fujicolor Pakistan Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore (hereinafter described as the appellant) would not be debarred from holding regular inquiry against the respondent for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the latter. The respondent has in his appeal attacked the observation that the impugned order would not debar the appellant from holding regular inquiry, whereas the appellant has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits. As both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. On behalf of the respondent an objection has been taken that the appeal brought by the appellant is not competent, inasmuch as it was not brought by the Director who had issued the order of dismissal and who had been sued in the grievance petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Directors had authorised the Marketing Manager to prefer the appeal. He has brought the resolution of the Directors in this respect. Learned counsel was asked on the previous date to bring the record of the proceedings of resolution but he says that the only record is the one which he has brought. The record brought by him consists of the resolutions recorded on loose papers tagged together. Any paper can be removed or inserted easily un noticed. There is no paging also. Such a record is not trustworthy. The appellant, therefore, has failed to establish that the officer who signed the memo of appeal was in reality authorised by any genuine resolution passed before the appeal was brought.
3. The allegation made against the respondent was that he prepared prints from negative of obscene pictures. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondent had admitted the allegation, holding of inquiry was not necessary. The learned counsel admits that no charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice was served upon the respondent in reply to which he may have made any admission. If any admission was made by the respondent which was not in reply to a charge‑sheet, it has no effect because the respondent did not know that he was to be proceeded against. Since the allegation amounted to misconduct, following of the procedure given in Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was necessary. The order of dismissal, therefore, is not sustainable.
4. The other point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that before bringing the grievance petition the respondent had received wages in full and final settlement of his dues, therefore, is debarred from challenging the order of dismissal. Such a plea can be found in the written statement. This fact is admitted that the respondent received wages. The contention of the respondent is that he received the wages under protest but there is no such note recorded either on the cheque or on the details of wages Exhs. R.2 and R.3. The respondent received such dues also which can be paid only after the termination of services and not before that. He received provident fund also although not alongwith other dues but afterwards. He was, therefore, debarred from challenging the order of punishment awarded to him and the finding of the learned lower Court on the point is wrong. But, however, as the very appeal of the appellant is not competent, the order of the learned lower Court cannot be disturbed.
5. So far as the appeal of the respondent is concerned, it has sufficient force. Since admittedly no charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice was served upon the respondent, no question of holding inquiry arises. Needless to say that without a charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice no inquiry can be held and by the time the learned lower Court allowed the appellant to hold inquiry, the period for giving charge‑sheet had expired.
6. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed as incompetent and accepting the appeal of the respondent, the permission given by the learned lower Court to the appellant to hold the inquiry is set aside.
A.E./217/Lb. P
Orders accordingly.