This is an appeal against the decision dated 20-6-77 of Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan.
2. Haji Muhammad Bakhsh, appellant was employed as a peon in Pakistan Railways. It was detected that he had been obtaining privilege passes for more than actual number of his children.
On this a charge-sheet Exh. P. 1 dated 28-5-1976 was issued to the. Appellant. He refused to submit the reply to the charge-sheet. According to the appellant, he was dismissed from service on 15-6- 1976 without any enquiry being held against him, but according to the respondent, an ex parte enquiry was held, because he refused to participate in it. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and as a result thereof he was dismissed from service on 1 5-6-1976 vide dismissal order Exh.
P.
3. After that the appellant filed an appeal before the Railway Authorities, which was rejected on 21-8-1976.
3. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for re-instatement with back benefits, which was dismissed vide decision in appeal.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, Haji Nabi Bakhsh, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that no enquiry was held. In this connection he referred to paragraph 3 of the petition filed by the appellant and paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the respondent. Paragraph 3 of the petition reads as under; "That despite his specific denial of the said charge, he has been removed from service in an illegal manner in terms of A. P. O., Multan's Notice of 15-6-76 without a confronted enquiry and a show- cause notice."
Paragraph 3 of the written statement reads as under :-- "Pare No. 3 is admitted to the extent that the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 28-5-1976, which was acknowledged by him on the same day. The petitioner did not submit his defence in spite of service. In view of substantial evidence on the record coupled with complete silence of the petitioner to rebut the charges, guilt of fact stood proved."
6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the above written statement showed that the respondent had already made up his mind that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and, therefore, no enquiry was held. This contention does not appear to have any force in view of the statement of Abdul Ghani Butt, Head Clerk, who appeared on behalf of the respondent. According to him, an enquiry was held in which the appellant refused to participate. He, however, stated that when the enquiry notice was sent to the appellant, he appeared and sought permission that he be allowed to have a defence counsel. His request was rejected and after that he did not participate in the enquiry.
7. According to the proviso to Standing Order 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a' workman against whom an enquiry is being held, if he so desires, he can nominate any workman employed in that establishment for his assistance in the enquiry. In the instant case when the appellant sought permission, he means that he be allowed to nominate a workman to assist him in the enquiry. Since the said permission was not granted, the enquiry has been held in contravention of the mandatory provision of law. In view of the above the order of dismissal was invalid.
8. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be reinstated without bar benefits. There is no flaw in the charge-sheet issued to the appellant and, therefore, on the same charge-sheet the respondent can hold an enquiry afresh, if he so desires and if the appellant is found not guilty, then alone he would be entitled to back benefits.