Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LBR‑73 of 1982/Pb., decided on 3rd May, 1983.

(a)

West Pakistan

‑‑‑ S. O. 15 (4) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 22 (12) (b)‑Domestic enquiry‑Assistance by other worker‑Collective Bargaining Agent can represent a worker in any proceedings‑Accused workman himself Secretary of C. B. A. requesting for appointment of President of C. B. A. to assist him in inquiry‑Enquiry Officer refusing such request on ground that he (President) belonged to a different establishment ‑ Named person though belonging to a different establishment but C. B. A: of which he was President was not stranger and had been representing establishment of accused also‑Appointment of such person, held, would have been violative of provisions of S. O. 15 (4) if he had not been President of C. B. A.‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced by refusal of Enquiry Officer in allowing his request and enquiry thus made was not in accordance with law, and on its basis no punishment could be awarded.

(b) Industrial dispute‑--

--‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Copies of complete proceedings ‑ Supply of‑Not a right of accused worker ‑ To be supplied only on demand‑Accused making request for supply of a copy of enquiry proceedings before proceedings were started‑‑No request made when there was occasion i.e. after enquiry was completed‑No prejudice, in circumstances, held, caused to accused.

(c) Industrial dispute‑---

--‑‑Disciplinary action ‑ Victimisation ‑ Allegations proved in domestic enquiry‑Mere fact that accused was Joint Secretary of C. B. A., held, would not be enough to say that he was victimised.

H. R, Haider for Appellant

Syed Noor Ahmad for Respondent

Date of hearing ‑ 19th April, 1983.

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 10th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that be misbehaved before his officer i. e., Accounts Manager. The witnesses examined in the enquiry supported the prosecution case. Certain defects in the enquiry have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, which are discussed as under--

3. The appellant requested for the appointment of Ch. Altaf Hussain, President of C. B. A. Union, to assist him in the enquiry, but the Enquiry Officer refused on the ground that he belonged to a different establishment. According to section 22 (12) (b), a C. B. A. in relation to an establishment can represent the workers in any proceedings. This is true that Ch. Altaf Hussain belonged to a different establishment, but the C. B. A, of which he was the President, was not stranger and had been representing that establishment also. The appellant was the Joint Secretary of the same C. B. A. and was not a stranger to it, so his request for the appointment of Ch. Altaf Hussain was not in violation of any law and was covered by section 22 (12) (b). If Ch. Altaf Hussain had not been office‑holder of the C. B. A., of course, his appointment as Assistant of the appellant would have been violative of the provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The appellant was, therefore, prejudiced and thus the enquiry was not made in accordance with law and on its basis no punishment could be awarded.

4. It has been argued that the request for "supplying a copy of .the enquiry proceedings was made but it was refused. The request was made before the proceedings were started and the Enquiry Officer passed an order that on the close of the enquiry, copy of the proceedings may be taken. It does not appear that after the close of the proceedings, copies of the proceedings were demanded, and they were not supplied. It is not the right of the worker concerned to be supplied copies of the complete proceedings but they may be supplied on demand. No request was made for the supply of the copies when there was occasion. Before proceedings were started, there was nothing to be supplied, so request should have been made after the proceedings had been completed. So no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

5. The other point raised is the pages Nos. 5 and 6 of the enquiry do not bear the signatures of the appellant, which shows that the said leaves were replaced. The statements of the witnesses appearing on pages Nos. 5 and 6 were recorded again on the request of the appellant and these pages bear the signatures of the appellant, so it is immaterial if pages Nos. 5 and 6 do not bear his signatures,

6. The last point is that the appellant was Joint Secretary of C. B. A., therefore, was victimized. Since the allegations against him stood proved, be enough toll his being Joint Secretary of the C. B. A. Union would not say that he was victimized.

7. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, and the order of dismissal, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service. Since the appellant has succeeded on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits.

A.E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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