MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus MACDONALD LAYTON COSTAIN, HEAVY FOUNDRY & FORGED PROJECT, TAXILA, RAWALPINDI

ORDER

This is an application under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services ('Maintenance) Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, filed by one Muhammad Iqbal, an employee of MacDonald Layton Costain Limited, Heavy Foundry & Forged Project, Taxila (the respondent), the latter being declared under section 3 of the Act to be an employment to which the Act applies.

2. Petitioner's case.-The admitted facts are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent as a workman. He was dismissed from service on 27-11-1974 on a charge of misconduct, as it was said that on 10-I I-1974, r the petitioner has slipped away from the place of duty from 1.0-45 hours to 12-30 hours (i.e. for one and three quarters of an hour). The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and the charge being proved against him in an enquiry, he was dismissed from service as stated above. The petitioner has contended that the charge mentioned in the charge-sheet did not constitute misconduct as defined by Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Sanding Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and also the complaint on the basis of which the said charge-sheet was issued had not been supplied to the petitioner.

3: Respondent's case.-The respondent has contested the petitioner's claim by contending that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner did constitute misconduct under Standing Order 15 and no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner as the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who appeared against him at the enquiry and lead his defence.

4. Conclusions.--According to paragraph (e) of clause (3) of the Standing Order 15, habitual obsence without leave and absence from leave for more than ten days amounts to misconduct and according to paragraph (iv) of clause (2) of the said Standing Order one of the penalties provided therefor is dismissal without payment of any compensation in lieu of notice. According to the petitioner, the charge against him only being to the effect that he had remained absent from the place of duty for one and three quarters of an hour therefore the offence if any committed by the petitioner did not fall within the definition of misconduct as given in Standing Order 15 and consequently it did not call for extreme penalty i.e., dismissal from service. This contention of the petitioner, the learned representative of the respondent has no answer. Under the circumstances I find the action of the respondent highly unreasonable and cruel.

5. I therefore set aside the order of the petitioner's dismissal and direct that the petitioner be re-instated in service forthwith with all the back benefits.