Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 148 of 1982/BWP, decided on 5th June, 1982.

Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981)‑--

----Art. 9‑Writ jurisdiction‑Decision of Tribunal having jurisdiction-- Cannot be quashed by High Court on purely equitable considera tions‑Appeal against termination of service on account of misconduct accepted by Labour Appellate Tribunal on grounds that accused not allowed to participate in domestic enquiry‑Decision of Labour Appellate Tribunal challenged in writ petition before High Court Question of fact having been decided by Labour Appellate Tribunal interference refused by High Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 .

Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 and Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. P L D 1981 S C 246 rel.

S. Naeem Bokhary for Respondents.

This constitutional petition has been moved under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 for a declaration to the effect that the order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 21‑41982 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The relevant facts of this case in substance are that Abdur Rashid the respondent happens to be an employee of the petitioner Mills. He was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was pending against him. He alongwith others is alleged to have forcibly taken away the enquiry file from the custody of Iqbal Hussain, an officer of the petitioner mills, on pistol point.

3. The respondent was charge‑sheeted to which he submitted his reply. The reply was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry was held against him on 28‑8‑1977. The respondent did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. The stand of the respondent was that he was late by half an hour and w_ as not permitted to enter the mills premises to take part in the enquiry. He had sent an application by registered post to the same effect wherein he had clarified that his bicycle got out of order in the way, so he reached late by half an hour and was not allowed to enter the mills and he could not join the enquiry proceedings on that account His explanation was not considered and the enquiry report was submitted on 2‑10‑1977. His services were consequently dispensed with.

4. The respondent moved the Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Multan for his re‑instatement but his application filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was dismissed. He lodged a successful appeal and was re‑instated by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore by means of the impugned judgment.

5. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore had the authority to accept the appeal and order the reinstatement of the respondent. A tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that the decision is incorrect does not render the( decision as without lawful authority and the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, is not competent to quash the order of a tribunal on purely equitable considerations as held in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (P L D 1974 S .C 139) and Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzali Sohail etc. (P L D 1981 S C 246).

6. The matter of fact as to why the respondent could not join the enquiry proceedings was involved before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The matter of fact cannot be challenged in a writ petition. However, it may be noted that a defect in the enquiry does not wash the misconduct of the respondent. The petitioner is not precluded from recommencing the enquiry against the respondent on the same facts. This writ petition is not competent and is dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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