Find a Lawyer

Application No. 267 of 1968, decided on 25th April 1970.

---S. 37 ‑‑ Permission for dismissal ‑‑ Application for permission to dismiss an office‑bearer of Union‑Cannot be withdrawn on plea that accused worker ceased to be office‑bearer of Union‑With drawal of such application‑Not covered by any provision of Ordinance‑Court bound to decide every application strictly In accord ance with law anal not according to wished of parties.

---S.37---Permission for dismissal‑Bus driver (R. T. C.) charged of dishonesty for realizing Re. 0‑75 as fare without issuing ticket‑No conclusive evidence to establish charge against driver himself and amount allegedly received by bus cleaner‑Amount Is being paltry and already recovered permission for drastic action of dismissal, in circumstances, held, not justified.

Abdul Rehman Ansari for Petitioner.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.

On the date 26‑12‑1968 the petitioner i.e., the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, filed an application under section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, praying for the permission of this Court for dismissing from the service of the petitioner the respondent Muhammad Ishaque, a bus driver employed by the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi. In the application the petitioner has stated that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of that term in the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, and was also an officer of the 'Blest Pakistan Road Transport Workers Union, Rawalpindi, inasmuch as the respondent was a member of the executive committee of that Union. Some disputes between that Union and the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, were pending for adjudication in this Industrial Court. According to the petitioner the respondent had been charged with certain act of misconduct and a departmental Enquiry Officer had been appointed to hold an enquiry into the charges against the respon dent, who had eventually been given a show‑cause notice and had also been heard in person by the District Manager, Govern ment Transport Service, Rawalpindi. According to the contents of the petitioner's application the exact nature of the misconduct impugned to the respondent Muhammad Ishaque was as follows:--

"(1) that on 5‑11‑1968 the respondent was on duty with Bus No. 1877 plying on route No. 6.

(2) that he received an amount of Re. 0.75 as‑fare for one child travelling from Dina to Gujrat, but did not issue ticket in lieu thereof and thus pocketed the amount fraudulently." In view of all these facts the petitioner was of the view that the respondent, who had been held guilty by the Enquiry Officer, ought to be dismissed from service. As the respondent was an office‑bearer of a registered Trade Union, therefore, the petitioner sought the permission of this Court for the dismissal of the respondent. Copies of some relevant documents, including the charge‑sheet against the respondent and the report of the depart mental Enquiry Officer, were furnished to this Court by the petitioner.

On the date 24‑1‑1969 the respondent Muhammad Ishaque submitted his ‑ reply to the petitioner's application before this Court. He admitted that since the date 10‑12‑1962 he had been in, the service of the petitioner and that he (i.e., the respondent) was also an office‑bearer of a registered Trade Union ‑known as the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union, Rawalpindi. The respondent also emphasised the fact that even according to the documents filed in this Court by the petitioner no charge against the respondent had been substantiated inasmuch as the petitioner himself had admitted that the amount of Re. 0.75 as the fare of one travelling child had actually been received by the cleaner of the bus on which the offence attributed to the petitioner was alleged to have been committed, and' not by the respondent himself. The respondent further asserted that since neither the cleaner nor any passenger of that bus had made a statement to the effect that the respondent Muhammad Ishaque, bus‑driver, had induced, the cleaner to receive arty amount of money from a passenger unlawfully, hence there was no justifi cation for charging the respondent himself with any objectionable act. The respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the ambiguousness of the report of the departmental Enquiry Officer. On all the above‑mentioned grounds, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application .of the petitioner.

On the date 22‑4‑1970, which had been fixed by this Court for recording the; evidence of the petitioner In Rawalpindi, the Representative of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Rehman Ansari, filed a very briefly worded application in this Court, the relevant portion of which was worded as follows:‑

"Driver Muhammad Ishaq T/183 is no more member of the Workers' Union as such it is prayed that Application No. 267 be allowed to be withdrawn."

In response to that application of the petitioner this Court passed the following detailed order on 22‑4‑1970 : _.

"The petitioner's Representative has brought with him today and submitted to this Court a very briefly worded application praying for the permission of this Court to withdraw the petitioner's main application dated 26‑12‑1968, in which the permission of this Court had been sought for dismissing the respondent Muhammad Ishaque driver from service. In this second application the petitioner has neither cited the provisions of the law under which it has been filets in this Labour Court nor mentioned all the relevant facts on which this application is based, for example, the reasons for which and the date with effect from which the respondent Muhammad Ishaque has ceased to be a member of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union, Rawalpindi. The petitioner's Representative has not brought any witness today. He is, therefore, directed to file a detailed application containing all the necessary information so that this Court can determine whether or not the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his main application against the respondent. The representa tives of both parties shall attend this Court at Rawalpindi at 9 a.m. The briefly worded application filed by the representa tive of the petitioner shall be placed on the relevant record."

On the date 23‑4‑1970 the petitioner, in compliance with the above‑cited detailed order of this Court, submitted a detailed application for permission to withdraw the petitioner's main application. A reply to this detailed application of the petitioner was also filed by the respondent's Representative, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz. In that reply the respondents Representative raised a preliminary objection to the effect that no provisions of any relevant law had been cited in the petitioner's application dated 23‑4‑1970. The respondent's Representative further maintained that after an application had been instituted in this Court the respondent could not be deprived of any legal right due to his merely because certain circumstances had mean while changed. The respondent's Representative concluded his reply with the remark that if the petitioner was inclined to with draw his main application (filed under section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968) unconditionally and was ready to admit the innocence of the respondent Muhammad Ishaque then the respondent had no objection against the withdrawal of that application.

I have heard the arguments of the Representatives of both parties in regard to the merits of the petitioner's main application dated 26‑12‑1968 and also in regard to the petitioner's second application dated 23‑4‑1970.

It is undoubtedly a fact that the petitioner's second appli cation dated 23‑4‑1970 praying for permission to withdraw his main and earlier application dated 26‑12‑1968 did not contain the slightest reference to the provisions of the law under which it purported to have been submitted to this Court. I have scrutinized all the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, and also the entire text of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which repealed and replaced the earlier Ordinance of 1968. There is no reference whatsoever in either of these Ordinance to the withdrawal of any application that has already been filed in this Court. The main application of the petitioner contained a prayer for the permission of this Court to dismiss the respondent Muhammad Ishaq from service. It stands to reason that such permission can either be refused or granted by this Court. A Court of law has to consider and decide every application strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law and not in accordance with the wish of the parties concerned. Had the petitioner been sure of hiss competence to take disciplinary action against the respondent after the respondent had ceased to be an office‑bearer of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union, Rawalpindi, the petitioner would have passed an order of dismissal against the respondent and left it to the respondent to pursue his own remedy in the Court concerned. Evidently the petitioner has not taken any such action against the respondent so far.

For all the above‑stated reasons the second application of the petitioner, i.e., District Manager, Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, dated 23‑4‑1970 is hereby dismissed. So far as the petitioner's main application dated 26‑12‑1968 is concerned since there is no clear and conclusive evidence on the relevant record to establish the charge of misconduct against the respondent Muhammad Ishaque driver himself and since the amount of Re. 0.75, the alleged receipt of which forms the subject‑matter of the controversy between the two contending parties, is a paltry on and has already been recovered by the petitioner, therefore, I can see no justification for permitting the petitioner to take any drastic action against the respondent, whose previous record of service under the petitioner is obviously an unblemished one. Conse quently, I hereby dismiss the main application dated 26‑12‑681 filed by the petitioner under section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.