Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 927 2015 SLD 927 2015 PLC 259
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-1306 of 2012, decided on 26th May, 2015. Date ofhearing: 13th January, 2015.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND SHAUKAT ALI MEMON, JJ
Javed Asghar for Petitioner.Hussain Bux Balouch for
Respondent No. 1

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through AttorneyVSABDUL WAHEED ABRO and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)--- ----S. 46---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 10-A---Constitutional petition--- Misconduct--- Inquiry--- Principles--- Grievance petition---Principles of natural justice---Right of fair trial---Due process of law---Employee was dismissed from service against which grievance petition was filed which was accepted and order for reinstatement without back benefits was made by the Labour Court---Appellate Tribunal converted dismissal order into stoppage of increment of three years, however reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court was maintained---Validity---No monetary loss was caused to the employer Bank---Reinstatement order was passed due to defects in the inquiry as out of six witnesses produced in the inquiry the right of cross-examination was afforded to only one witness---Both the courts below observed that the inquiry was defective and the allegations leveled in the charge sheet/show-cause notice were found unproved and unsubstantiated---Purpose for issuing show-cause notice and holding of inquiry was to ascertain whether the charges of misconduct leveled against the employee were proved or not---Where charge of misconduct was proved after an impartial and fair inquiry then employer/management had prerogative to decide the sternness and severity of the punishment which might include dismissal from service---Management had to provide fair opportunity of defence in the inquiry to an accused employee for exercise of such power---Inquiry Officer should explore every avenue so that the inquiry might be conducted in a fair and impartial manner---Inquiry officer should avoid razing and annihilating the principles of natural justice which might ensue the miscarriage of justice---Inquiry could not be treated at par with the court proceedings nor the inquiry officer as judicial officer---Principles of natural justice could not be ignored and once a person/employee was subjected to inquiry and evidence was recorded then it was his right to cross-examine the witnesses and if such right was not made available then testimony of witness against such employee would have no dependability or admissibility to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register