DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement with back benefits on an application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The respondent was working as a weaver on piece rate basis in the Silk Factory of the appellants.
There was some allegation of misconduct against him and, therefore, he was charge-sheeted as well as suspended on 23rd February, 1976. Subsequently, enquiry was held and he was found guilty and dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this he served a grievance notice and approached Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R. O.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to the industry as it was an industrial establishment and not a commercial establishment. Furthermore, proper enquiry was held and the action was taken on the basis of the result of the enquiry.
4. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that it was a commercial establishment and proper enquiry was not held and, therefore, the order of dismissal was bad. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.
5. A plea was taken on behalf of the appellant before the Labour Court that the factory did not employ more than 50 persons and, therefore, Standing Order No. 15 was not applicable. To this the Labour Court stated that the Mill was a commercial establishment employing more than 20 workmen and, therefore, if it was not an industry, it was a commercial establishment and as such was covered by Standing Order No. 15. I must say that the Presiding Officer clearly erred in this. Mill was an industrial establish--ment where the weaving work was done and it could not be treated to be a com--mercial establishment. Consequently, according to proviso of section 1 of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, Standing Order No. 15 was not applicable. It is not claimed that any notification was issued extending the application of standing order to the present industry.
6. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that the copy of the complaint which formed the basis of the charge-sheet was not supplied and, therefore, action taken by the Management was not sustainable. There is no force in this contention in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Shamim v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Karachi and another (1975SCMR46);
7. Exception was also taken that the respondent was suspended on the same day. I am afraid no illegality can be attributed to this action.
8. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent that he was verbally dismissed on 27th. There is no substance in this as the enquiry papers reveal that enquiry was held on 28th and it bears the signature of the respon--dent.
9. It was also pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the chance of personal hearing was not given, but no such allegation was made in the grievance notice. The bare word of the respondent cannot be accepted.
10. Lastly, it was pointed out that only 24 hours were allowed to the respondent to reply the charge- sheet. There was nothing wrong in it. There is no allegation that the respondent sought for time to submit the explanation and it was refused. Consequently, no grievance can be made or entertained.
11. In result the appeal is allowed and order of the Labour Court is set aside. The application made under section 25-A stands dismissed.