1. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court dismissing the application under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The appellant was in the employment of Railway. The allegation against him was that he had abused and beaten his Foreman on 11-9-1975. He was charge-sheeted. He submitted his explanation denying the allegations but his explanation was not found satisfactory and he was removed from service. He served grievance notice and approached the Labour Court but his application was dismissed. So the present appeal was filed.
3. The only plea which has been raised before me is that the action against applicant was taken without affording him an opportunity of showing cause as required by rule 5 (3) (b) of the Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
4. In order to appreciate flier contention which has been raised before me it is necessary to reproduce the Rule which forms the basis of controversy between parties. It reads as under :- It is clear from the bare reading of the Rule that not only a show- cause notice has to be given but a reasonable opportunity is also necessary which means that the employee has a right to rebut the allegations by leading such evidence as he may find necessary otherwise the provision t allow reasonable opportunity to show cause against the accusation become redundant. The use of the words "reasonable opportunity" does not merely mean the show-cause notice and submission of explanation. To hold to the contrary amounts to the denial of requirements of affording reasonable opportunity to rebut the accusation which forms the basis of the action. The only exception to this is that where the authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity. The learned counsel for respondent has failed to show that in the present case the proviso was applicable. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the allegation against the appellant involved the security of Pakistan or any part thereof.
5. It was a mere misconduct for having abused and beaten the Foreman.
6. The learned counsel for respondent, however, tried to rely upon sub rule (4) and urged that the same sub-rule provided that on receipt of the explanation the authorised officer was competent to determine whether the charge was proved and having been so satisfied he could take the action. I am unable to uphold the contention for the reason that this amounted to denial of the right of the Civil Servant conferred by sub-rule (3) (b) requiring affording of reasonable opportunity. This is a valuable right and it could not be the intention of the Legislature to snatch away that right in succeeding sub rule. This is further confirmed by adding proviso to the sub-rule whereby the requirement was dispensed with in case the security of Pakistan or any part thereof was threatened or affected. The two sub--rules are not independent of each other but must be read together. In case there is any conflict, efforts must be made to reconcile them in order to find out the true intent of the Legislature and eliminate the chances of redundancy or conflict.
7. In result, I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. It is, however, open to the respondent-Management to take such action as may be deemed fit after allowing the reasonable opportunity to the appellant of showing cause against the action that may be proposed to be taken.