This judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. No, 10/2004 and F.A.O. No, .6/2004 as both proceed against common judgment of a learned Labour Court.
2. Feeling aggrieved of an order passed by the appellants on 9.7.2001 dismissing the respondent from, service, the later filed a petition on 14.7.2001 under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to this petition, the respondent had been involved in Trade Union Activities and holding office in the Trade Union and managed to annoy the Employer. According to him he had been appointed as a Guard on 12.9.1977 and was continuing in service ever since. He intended to take part in the Local Government Elections, which were to be held in D.G. Khan on 31.12.2000. He filed an application before the Manager of the, relevant branch to obtain an N.O.C. for the said purpose on 21.11.2000. The application was forwarded to the Zonal Office on 22.11.2000.
However, the respondent was not informed of the result of the said application. He assumed that the appellant had no objection. Thereafter, he applied 15 days leave on 11.12.2000 stating that he is to, participate in the said elections. The application was entertained by the Manager who sought a reliever from the Regional Office. He accordingly contested the election and was declared returned to a general seat. Although there is no bar in the said law which provides for a non-party election and also in the rules in the matter of Local Government Election participation, yet the appellant proceeded to dismiss him from service. He claimed to be worker and prayed for the setting-aside of the said order. The appellants in their written statement took the plea that the respondent is not Workman and that he cannot approach the Labour Court; that a grievance notice has not been served; that proper procedure has been adopted before dismissing the appellant. On merits an evasive sort of reply was submitted. The learned, Labour Court recorded evidence and vide judgment dated 22.12.2003, while holding that the dismissal is illegal, proceeded to convert the same into retirement from service with full back benefits. Against the said judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan F.A.O. No, 6/2004 has been filed by the respondent Employee, while F.A.O.
No, 10/2004 has been filed by the Employer.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is a clear bar in the Staff Service Rules applicable to the respondent upon his taking part in the said elections and as such the dismissal has been ordered for valid reasons. It has further been contended that respondent is not Workman, as he is a Guard. He prays that order of dismissal be restored.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contends that his client is a Workman and there is no bar in the said rules qua the respondent's participating in the non-party elections.
5. I have gone through the trial Court records with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
I have already referred to the pleadings above.
6. So for as the contention as to the status of the respondent is concerned, there is nothing in the record to the effect that the respondent is an Employer and not a Workman as defined in the I.R.O or west Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Nothing therefore, turns on the said contention.
7. Now the copy of the rules being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is available as Ex.R-5. Precise reference is to Rule 28 Chapter 4. Sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 28 narrates that no Employee shall be come a Member of a political party, take part in, subscribe in aid or against, in any way, any political activity in Pakistan or relating to the affairs of Pakistan. Upon plain reading of the said rule, it prohibitions the respondent from becoming a Member of the political party and then to participate in political activities as stated in the said rules. Now the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 provided for holding of elections to the Local Government on non-party basis. One of the disqualification prescribed for intending candidates was that he was a Member of the political party and was contesting the elections from its platform. It is a matter of record that the Nomination Papers of the respondent were accepted and thereafter, he contested the election and the same had not been challenged or set-aside. Thus, by participating in the said non-party elections, the respondent has not at all violated any part of the said Rule 28 being pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Apart from the said unambiguous legal position, it has further been proved on record that the appellant did seek permission to contest the said elections vide application Ex.P-1 which was admittedly forwarded to Regional Office on 21.11.2000. Ex.P-3 is leave application form of the respondent wherein he sought fifteen days leave to contest the said elections. The Manager sought a reliever. It was only on 29.1.2001 (Ex.P-8) i,e, long after the election and declaration of result, that the respondent was informed by the Manager that as per advice received from the Principal Office-Karachi on 1.1.2001 the N.O.C. to take part in election cannot be granted, thus, the act of the respondent in contesting the said election is neither violative of the said service rules nor can it be said that he deliberately committed an act of insubordination. The elections had long been held and over when he was informed that he could not participate in the elections.
9. Now notwithstanding the above legal and factual position, the fact remains that the respondent has been performing the duties of a Guard at the Bank. It has come on record that it was only after his dismissal that he started attending the meetings of the Union Council to which he stood elected. Now there can be no cavil that he is required by law to attend the said meetings and this he cannot do while guarding the relevant branch of the Bank. I may refer here to the reply filed by the respondent to the Show-Cause Notice (Ex.R-6). I find that the respondent has stated without any demur that if the appellant so order, he is ready to resign the said office in the Local Government.
10. The respondent in present in Court alongwith his learned counsel. I confronted him with the said position as also the said stance taken by him. He confirms the same and reiteration that in case the management so orders, he will be 'willing to resign as a General Councillor in the Union Council concerned.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, and the position reiterated by the respondent, F.A.O.
No, 10/2004 is dismissed while F.A. No, 6/2004 is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan is set aside and grievance petition filed by the respondent is allowed, inasmu ch as, subject to his said undertaking, the dismissal order dated 4.7.2001 is set-aside and he is ordered to be reinstated with back benefits. No order as to costs.
12. The lower Court records be remitted back immediately.