Find a Lawyer

Applications Nos. DGK‑407 to 410 of 1977 and DGK‑133 of 1978, decided on 30th May, 1978.

‑‑‑S.47 read with S.25‑A‑‑Permission for dismissal of office‑bearer of Trade Union for misconduct during pendency of industrial dispute‑‑Scope of S.45‑‑Labour Court to see whether prima facie case of misconduct made out and it was not a case of victimization on account of trade union activities‑‑Not to sit in appeal on detailed facts and findings of enquiry‑‑Contention that Labour Court should have seen that correct procedure in framing charge and holding enquiry had been adopted and accused was correctly found guilty of misconduct‑‑Rejected‑‑Such contention if accepted ultimate grievance petition under S.25‑A would be liable to dismissal on grounds of res judicata.

Habib Bank Staff Union v. Habib Bank Limited, Sahiwala 'Zone' 1978 P L C 521 rel.

Muhammad Ikram for Petitioners.

M.A. Ghani for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th May, 1978.

These are revision petitions against separate orders of the Labour Court granting permission to the respondent to dismiss the petitioners from service.

2. All the petitioners are office‑bearers of a Registered trade union and an industrial dispute raised by the said union is pending before the Conciliator. All the petitioners were bus conductors and had been charge‑sheeted for fraud amounting to misconduct. An enquiry was conducted against them and they were found guilty of the alleged misconduct. Thereafter, second show‑cause notices were also issued to them and only the final orders had to be passed against them. Therefore, the respondent in all these cases sought permission under section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from the Labour Court to dismiss them. In the case of Bashir Ahmad, petitioner, the permission was granted vide order, dated 26‑2‑1978 while in the cases of the rest of the petitioners the permission was granted vide common order, dated 17‑10‑1977.

3. Aggrieved by the above orders, Allah Ditta, Jahangir Mazari, Gulzar Ahmad, Ghulam Shabbir and Bashir Ahmad, petitioners have preferred separate revision petitions. Since the point of law involved in all these petitions is the same, they will be disposed of together by one judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before granting permission under section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 it was the duty of the Labour Court to see that correct procedure had been adopted in framing charges and holding enquiry and that the workmen were correctly found guilty of misconduct. Vide my reported judgment in the case, Habib Bank Staff Union v. Habib Bank Limited, Sahiwala Zone 1978 P L C 521 decided on 9‑2‑1978 I have already held that the Labour Court under section 47 has only to see whether a prima facie case of misconduct has been made out against the petitioners and that it was not a case of victimization on account of their trade union activities.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the authorities relied upon by me in the above judgment were not applicable, because they referred to section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and section 30(2) of Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, the wordings of which, w‑,,e not the same as section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This contention has no force, because the wordings of the relevant part of the said sections are almost the same as section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the instant cases no case of vicitmization has been made out and it was not for the Labour Court at that stage to have gone more deeply into the matter in order to find out the truth or otherwise of the charges frames against the petitioners.

6. After three days of the conclusion of the detailed arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted written arguments with some authorities. I have perused them and find that I cannot change my view as already expressed by me in my judgment, dated 9‑2‑1978. In any case if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then the Labour Court would have to give its decision on the same facts all over again, if petitions under section 25‑A are filed against the punishment awarded to the petitioners and under these circumstances, the petitions would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Therefore, in my view, the Labour Court under section 47 has only to see whether a prima facie case of misconduct has been made out and that the punishment proposed to be awarded did not amount to victimization.

7. I, accordingly, find no merit in all these petitions, which are hereby dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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