Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 58 of 1975, decided on 17th July 1975.

-- S. 25-A-Scope-Powers of Labour Court--Dismissal due to mi -conduct-Domestic enquiry held properly with due defence oppor tunity--Second show -cause notice served with copy of enquiry report- Labour Court, in circumstances, held, not to sit in appeal over findings of domestic enquiry.

Messrs Muhammad Ali Tramways Co., Karachi v. Imdad Ali 1974 P L C Note 67 at p. 36. Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court No.1 1975 S C M R 46 rel.

Malik Bashir Ahmed for Appellant.

Cap. Habib Ullah for Respondent.

Liaqat Ali, the respondent was employed as workman in the Bicycle Division of Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd., Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, the appel lant. He was dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct on 7th November 1973. On 16th November 1973 he filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore seeking his re-instatement with back benefits.

2. He maintained in the said application that order of his dismissal from service was illegal and void, inasmuch as, the charges levelled against him were not proved during the domestic enquiry and that he was not served with any second show-cause notice after the completion of the enquiry.

3. The application filed by the respondent before the learned lower Court was resisted before the said Court by the appellant who pleaded that the respondent was duly dismissed in accordance with law after observing all the prescribed formalities. He was charge-sheeted, an independent domestic enquiry was instituted. He was found guilty of the misconduct. 8e was served with show-cause notice and after considering his reply to the show-cause notice the competent authority ordered his dismissal which was thus quite lawful and binding.

4. Muhammad Ali and Liaqat Ali, respondent himself appeared before the lower Court as respondent's witnesses while Syed Abid Hussain, Administrative Officer of PECO Ltd., testified before the lower Court on behalf of the appellant.

5. After considering the parties evidence the learned 'lower Court observed that there was no point for the respondent to take part in the illegal strike of the supervisory staff because the respondent was a workman. It was further observed that even on merits the appellant has failed to establish that the petitioner was seen amongst the people who were on strike. In the light of these observations the learned lower Court ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with back benefits by its order, dated the 14th February 1975, which has been impugned through the present appeal.

6. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The parties evidence, verbal as well as documentary has been critically analysed and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Liaqat Ali, respondent while appearing as his own witness before the lower Court clearly admitted that he received the charge-sheet; he replied to the charge-sheet, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer and produced his defence: he was served with a second show-cause notice which was accompanied by the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and he submitted reply to the second show-cause notice. These admissions on the part of the respondent amply proved that dismissal of the respondent had been ordered by the appellant after observing the formalities prescribed in Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968. As a matter of fact Junior Labour Court is not to go into the merits of the case. It is only to see that if the dismissal of the workman has been ordered in accordance with law or not. Obviously the Junior Labour Court is not a Court of appeal against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In Messrs Muhammad Ali Tramways Co., Karachi v. Imdad Ali (1974 P L C Note 67 at p. 36) it has been held by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that it was within the power of Enquiry Officer to believe or disbelieve the statement of a witness appearing of before the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court was not entitled to examine as to why statement of one witness was preferred over another by Enquiry Officer. In Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Sind Labour Court No. 1 (1975 S C M R 46) the Supreme Court of Pakistan bas held that the question as to whether workman proceeded against had committed any theft or not being a question of fact could only be enquired by Enquiry Officer and Labour Court was only concerned with question whether action taken against the workman was in accordance with law.

7. Even on merits in the light of the contents of the enquiry proceedings Exh. R. 2, T am inclined to find that the Enquiry Officer was justified in finding that the respondent actively participated in the illegal strike held on 27th and 28th June 1973 and that he persuaded and incited others to stage the strike.

8. In the light of what has been said above we find that the dismissal of the respondent was ordered by the appellant in accordance with law and the impugned order whereby the lower Court has ordered the re-instatement of the respondent, is therefore not legally sustainable. I would accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent before the learned lower Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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