Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑555 of 1982, heard on 22nd March, 1983.

Industrial dispute---‑

--‑‑Inquiry‑Word "inquiry" does not necessarily mean examination of witness or recording their evidence‑Railway workman dismis sed for misconduct‑Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court on grounds that inquiry was defective‑Labour Court giving option to Railway administration to hold fresh inquiry if so desired and back benefit made dependent upon result of such fresh inquiry‑Accused served with fresh charge‑sheet and after obtaining explanation thereto and duly considering same, imposed penalty of with holding of one increment‑Back benefits not allowed- Workman approaching Labour Court again by application under S. 51, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming back wages Labour Court rejecting application‑Appeal filed before Labour Appellate Tribunal‑Order of Labour Court under S. 51, held, not appealable yet Appellate Tribunal exercising suo motu revision powers under S. 38 (3‑a), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and examined case‑Worker governed by Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 providing two modes of holding an inquiry (1) service of statement of allegations and asking accused to submit explanation and then on basis of state ment of allegations and his explanations imposition of any penalty and (2) appointment of full‑fledged Enquiry Officer to examine witnesses and to submit detailed report to competent authority‑ .‑: Accused worker dealt with according to first mode‑Action in circumstances, held, constituted inquiry and compliance with terms of option given by Labour Court‑Refusal of back benefit, in circumstances, held, within power of competent authority under r. 2044 of Railways Establishment Code hence not open to exception‑Order of Labour Court refused to be interfered with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A, 37, 51 & 38 (3‑a) and Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 5 read with Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, r. 2044.

Manial Hay v. Ganga Parshad Sarkar A I R 1957 Assam 76 and Sardar Ali Bhattl v. Pakistan through General Manager N. W. R. P L D 1961 Lah.664 rel.

Muhammad Ahmad for Applicant.

A. T. Mahmood for Respondent

The workman, Goriman, who was employed as a helper in the Pakistan Railways, was placed under suspension for misconduct, vide letter, dated 12th August, 1979. and was ultimately removed from service vide letter of the Pakistan Railways, dated 3rd April, 1980. Goriman challenged the order of his removal from service. through a grievance petition under section 25‑A, 1. R. O., preferred before the learned Vth Labour Court which set aside the order of his removal from service on the, grounds, That the enquiry against him was not conducted in accordance with law nor he was given a full and fair opportunity of defending himself and that further it had not been establish ed that he had been supplied with a copy of the enquiry officer's report. The learned Labour Court, however, gave an option to the Pakistan Railways to hold a fresh enquiry against Goriman, if it so desired, within. a reasonable time and the award of back benefits was made dependent upon the result of such fresh enquiry.

2. In consequence of the above order, Goriman was re‑instated in service by the Pakistan Railways but he was served with afresh charge‑sheet dated 27th June, 1981. The charge‑sheet was ‑accompanied by a statement of allegations, which reads as follows :‑

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION

(l) That on 6th August, 1979, while the pay clerk was disbursing the payment of regular salary for July,, 1979 to Class IV Labour Staff you exploded the labour staff not to receive the payment until and unless the recreation allowance is also paid to them today i.e. on 6th August, 1979 with the regular salary and brought all the labour to the office where you stood slogans against the officials as well as others using unparliamentarily and filthy language and wasted the time but some how or other the staff was convinced that all possible efforts will be made for payment of recreation allowance by tomorrow i.e. on 7th August, 1979.

(2) On 7th August, 1979 you kidmindy that one Assistant Officer and other concerned staff had gone to D. S. Office for passing the bills and D. P. H. to arrange for pay clerk you again brought the staff to the office early in the morning at about 9‑30 hours leaving behind the urgent work of issues and again started abusing the officials and others using unparliamentary language but some how or other by strenuous efforts the payment was arranged on 7th August, 1979 out of the way in order to create healthy atmosphere.

(3) This action of yours not only hampered the or C of urgent issues of flood reserve material which was to be sent for use on breached at K.O.T., D.C.R. and H.O.N. and other indisciplined atmosphere against staff."

3. According to the workman, Goriman, he had submitted a reply to the charge‑sheet but no enquiry was held against him and hence he had filed a complaint against the concerned officials of the Railways under section 25 (8), I. R. O., for the non‑implementation of the orders of the learned Vth Labour Court and not giving him the back benefits as awarded by the learned Labour Court. On the other hand, the case of the Pakistan Railways is that on the basis of the allegations against the workman and the reply which he had submitted to the charge‑sheet, which reply was not considered satisfactory, the workman was imposed the penalty of withholding of increment temporarily for one year from the date it was next due. Goriman has admitted that this penalty has been imposed on him. As Goriman claimed that he was entitled to full wages for the period that he was kept out of service under the orders of removal from service which had been set aside by the learned Vth Labour Court, by its decision, dated 13th April, 1981, he filed a petition under section 51, I. R. O., claiming the said back wages. This claim has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court, vide its decision, given on 19th September, 1982. It may be pointed out that no appeal lies to this Tribunal against an order of the learned Labour Court passed under section 51, I. R. O. However, in the exercise of the suo motu powers of revision vested in this Tribunal under subsection (3‑a) of section 33,A I. R. O., the Record and Proceedings of the case were called for from the learned Labour Court to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed.

4. It was contended by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned counsel for the workman, Goriman, that the learned Labour Court, by its decision, dated 13th April, 1981, had awarded back benefits to the worker had made the payment of the back benefits to the workman dependent upon the result of the fresh enquiry which has not been held against him. The learned counsel accordingly contended that Goriman was entitled to the payment of full back benefits. It is not disputed that in accordance with the option given by the learned Labour Court to the Pakistan Railways a fresh charge‑sheet accompa nied by a statement of allegations was served upon the workman and he had submitted a reply thereto. It is also not disputed that on the basis of this charge‑sheet and the reply, the notice of penalty of withholding of the increment temporarily for one year was imposed upon the workman. The issue, therefore, that arises is whether these actions constitute an enquiry and comply with the terms of the option given by the learned Labour Court to the Pakistan Railways. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary, the word inquiry' has been defined as "a seeking for information. An examination or investigation." In the case reported as Manial Haq v. Ganga Parshad Sarkar (A I R 1957 Assam 76), the Assam High Court observed that the word 'enquiry' within the meaning of section 202, Cr. P. C. is not limited to and does not necessarily mean an enquiry by examining witnesses or by holding investigation into the case in any particular form. It further observed that it was open to the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the case in any manner that he could have adopted when the accused had been in attendance and that going to the scene of occurrence and making a local enquiry was within his competence. It would thus appear that the word enquiry' does not necessarily mean the examination of witnesses or the recording of their evidence as contended by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned counsel for the workman. It may be pointed out that this also appears to be the interpretation put on the word enquiry' in the Railway Servants' (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975, under which action has been taken against the workman. The said rules provide a two‑fold mode of holding an enquiry, the first being one in which a mere statement of allegations is served upon the accused employee and is asked to submit his explanation thereto and on the basis of that explanation and the statement of allegations a penalty is imposed on him as in the present case and the second mode is the appointment of a full‑fledged enquiry officer who examines witnesses and submits a detailed report to the competent authority. In the instant case, since there has been an enquiry as contemplated by the rules applicable to the workman, I am of the view that the directions of the learned Labour Court in this behalf have been fully complied with.

5. It was next sought to' be contended by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad that under the rules applicable to the workmen he is entitled to full pay since his services have not been terminated and he has been given a minor penalty. As already indicated, the workman had been placed under suspension during the earlier proceedings against him which had terminated in his removal from service. Rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code, empowers the competent authority to grant full pay for the period of absence from duty to the Railway servant if he is honourably acquitted. As clarified by the Lahore High Court in the case reported as Sardar Ali Bhatti v. Pakistan Through General Manager N. W. R. (P L D 1961 Lah.664), not only this rule makes it a precondition that the person placed under suspension or who has been absent from duties should be honourably acquitted before his claim for full wages can be considered but further gives discretionary powers of the compe tent authority to grant him full wages or part to the wages if he is honourably acquitted. It was emphasised by the learned Judge, Lahore High Court that if the Rule had intended that it was obligatory on the part of the Railway authorities to give full wages to the workman for the period of his absence from duty if he is honourably acquitted it would have expressly stated so. In the instant case, the position is worse as admittedly the workman .has been punished by the imposition of stoppage of increment.

6. It was finally submitted by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad that 2 punishments have been imposed on the workman. The first is the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year and the second of with holding of his pay for the period of his suspension. Apart from the fact that rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code does not entitle the workman to the grant of pay for this period, the Railway Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, themselves provide the imposition of one or more penalties.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of opinion that there is no valid ground for interference with the decision of the learned Labour Court. The revision proceedings are disposed of accordingly.

A. E. Appeal 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.