MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE SINDHU and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating the respondent employee with back benefits. The respondent was dismissed from service following an inquiry report finding him guilty under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. He challenged his dismissal through a petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was initially dismissed by the Labour Court but allowed on appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the inquiry was vitiated by the consideration of extraneous matters, specifically the employee's previous service record. The core legal question was whether an inquiry officer and employer can rely on extraneous matters not forming part of the formal charge-sheet when finding an employee guilty and directing dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Inquiry Officer was bound to confine himself strictly to the matters specified in the charge-sheet and could not be influenced by extraneous considerations such as past penalized service records. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, ruling that the dismissal order was rightly quashed as being without lawful authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that relying on extraneous matters vitiates a disciplinary inquiry and dismissal.
- Whether an inquiry officer can consider extraneous matters not mentioned in the charge-sheet when determining the guilt of an employee?
- Is a dismissal order sustainable if the inquiry report is influenced by the previous service record for which the employee had already been penalized?
- Does the reliance on extraneous matters render an industrial dismissal order without lawful authority?
- Section 15 clause 3(b), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
"Bin-Card No,423". This being so he was alleged to have committed an offence under Standing Order 15 clause 3(b) of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. He was directed to submit his reply by 27-7-1976 at 10-00 a.m.
To the charge-sheet. On 11-8-1976, another charge-sheet was given to him. On 16-8-1976, the respondent denied the allegations levelled against him vide his reply stating that it was not his, duty to make any entry in the Bin Card which was maintained in the Tool Store relating to the item "H.S.S. Hob Cutter /12 Modeule". This explanation was not found satisfactory by the petitioner. On 19- 8-1976, a notice was given to the respondent. Mr. Muhammad Siddique Waqar, Welfare Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The respondent was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. He was dismissed from service w.e.f, 13-9-1976. The respondent instituted a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Lahore Court No,2, Lahore which was dismissed on 31-7-1977. The respondent went in appeal which was heard and accepted by the Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 29-3-1979. In consequence thereof, he was ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits. While accepting the appeal, the Tribunal observed:-- "The aforementioned extraneous matters are not part of the charge-sheet issued to the appellant and therefore, they could not have been taken into consideration while finding him guilty. In 'the case of Chan Pir Shah v. Congothene Chemicals Industries Limited; etc. (1981 PLC 984), it was observed that if extraneous matters have been taken into account while passing an order, the entire order is liable to be quashed.
' In view of the above, the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was without lawful authority. In the result, I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be reinstated with back benefits."
' The petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned appellate judgment by filing Constitution Petition No,1906 of 1979 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 1-12-1986. This petition for leave to appeal has been instituted by the petitioner.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the charge of theft levelled against the respondent has been proved on the basis of reliable and credible evidence. He also stated that the respondent was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer after recording evidence against him.
3. We have not been convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel inasmuch as the Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal assessed/discussed the entire evidence of the parties and concluded that' the Inquiry Officer had taken extraneous matters into consideration while finding the respondent guilty of the allegations levelled against him. It was further held that extraneous matters referred to above, could not be made a part of the charge-sheet issued to the respondent. It was, therefore, concluded that the dismissal of the respondent from service was without lawful authority. This finding was upheld by the High Court in its impugned judgment. The High Court held as follows:-- "A bare reading of para. 16 of inquiry report shows that the Inquiry Officer was influenced of the previous service record of respondent No,1 for which he had already been duly penalized and the appellate tribunal correctly held that the inquiry officer had taken extraneous matters into consideration while holding respondent No,1 as guilty whereas under the law the Enquiry Officer is under duty to confine himself only to the matters referred to in charge-sheet and the dismissal of an employee on the basis of such report if not sustainable and therefore, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly accepted the appeal of respondent No,1 ."
We have been persuaded to hold that the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court have done full justice between the parties on the basis of available evidence according to law. No question of law of public importance has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned judgment is proper and fair. Let the respondent be reinstated in service with back benefits by the petitioner as already directed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. This being so, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.