Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the burden primarily falls on the employer to prove an employee’s misconduct in a dismissal case.
“The primary burden of proving misconduct rests on the employer so that the matter can be decided based on a preponderance of evidence that is clear, credible, and supports the final conclusion with little room for doubt.
“In general, when an employee challenges his dismissal or dismissal from service, the burden often falls on the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, impartial and logical reasons, and that in dismissing or dismissing the employee from service, the principles of natural justice and due process were religiously followed.
“The employer has to present substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by revenge, bias or prejudiced aspiration,” says a 12-page ruling written by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Due to a toothache, the petitioner visited a dental surgeon on September 1, 2015, where he was advised to undergo root canal treatment. After treatment, the petitioner requested reimbursement of the medical bill as per the company’s approved policy.
However, the human resources manager issued him a show-cause notice on December 1, 2015 with allegations that he had submitted a fake medical bill worth Rs 10,000.
The petitioner filed his response and denied the allegations. He participated in the investigation and also submitted the verified invoice on December 4, 2015 along with the payment receipt of Rs 10,000.
However, on the basis of adverse findings, the petitioner was terminated from employment on March 8, 2016. The petitioner filed a grievance petition with the National Labor Relations Commission (NIRC), which dismissed the petition.
He subsequently filed an appeal before a full bench of the NIRC, which accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the single bench of the NIRC.
He ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with all back benefits. The company then filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court (SHC), which quashed the entire NIRC court order.
The petitioner subsequently approached the Supreme Court, whose three-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, set aside the SHC order.
In its verdict, the SC noted that when there were contradictory receipts in the file, it was mandatory for the investigating officer to call a witness from the hospital for evidence and verification, granting the petitioner the right to cross-examination, without which the truth could not be discovered.
“The purpose of an internal investigation under labor laws, if taken so lightly, destroys the entire substratum.
“Regardless of the fact that an investigation officer in a national investigation cannot be equated with a well-trained judicial officer, the minimum requirements of natural justice and due process are common sense and essential to the conscience of the investigation officer before declaring an employee guilty of misconduct and forwarding the investigation report or recommendations to the management.”
The judgment noted that it is the prerogative and inherent right of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law to address misconduct, if committed by any employee.
However, the course of action to address any act of misconduct must adhere to the principles of natural justice and prescribed guidelines to ensure due process of law.
“Poor management of misconduct cases has a negative impact on labor relations and also tyrannizes the level of trust between management and workers.
“Therefore, it is essential that employers maintain transparency, uniformity and egalitarianism, which implies compliance with all legal requirements and equal treatment of employees without any discrimination or favoritism.”
The ruling also notes that proving guilt on charges of misconduct is a serious matter and, at least for the employee, the stakes are much higher than those of the employer.
“Therefore, due diligence should have been done before pleading guilty. In the present case, the evidence of the representative of the dental clinic/doctor
It was inevitable to prove guilt whether the petitioner had paid Rs 7,000 or Rs 10,000 and whether he had actually submitted a bill for an excessive amount or not.
“Therefore, in our opinion, the hospital witness could be the star witness in this case, who was ignored and no effort was made by the management representative to call him before the investigation officer as a management witness.
“The burden of calling him should not be on the employee if the management did not want to verify or confront those medical bills with their star/key witness, who by his own mistake lost his evidentiary value and nothing showed in the record which hospital/clinic bill was genuine.
“In fact, the expression ‘star witness’ or ‘key witness’ refers to a witness whose evidence is considered of utmost importance to both the prosecution and the defense.
“In fact, their testimony is vital to corroborating key facts. It is somewhat of a common point of reference that the doctrine of presumption of innocence places the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The scale and extent of the probability of guilt may be based on the interdependence of evidence, therefore, even in domestic investigations initiated under the Industrial Relations Acts and the Public Servants Acts and Regulations, it is an onerous duty of the investigation officer/investigation committee to provide ample opportunities for fair trial and due process,” the ruling said.
