This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No, 627/02 and Writ Petition No: 1168/02, as common questions are involved. The petitioners in both these writ petitions were employees of Respondent No,
3. Feeling aggrieved of orders, passed against them for dismissing them from service, they filed grievance petitions under Section 25-A IRO, 1969. In both petitions the plea taken was that no charge sheet was served or inquiry held and even the order of dismissal was passed orally.
Respondent No, 3 pleaded that the petitioners were- proceeded against for misconduct in accordance with Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. They were served with charge sheet. Inquiry was conducted and only thereafter the dismissal order was passed. Learned Labour Court-6 at Rawalpindi, after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed both the applications vide judgment dated 11.5.1994. The appeals filed by petitioners were dismissed by the learned Respondent No, 1, vide judgment dated 5.12.2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the charge sheet and order appointing Inquiry Officer was issued by Personnal Manager who was not employer within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Further contends that signatures of the Inquiry Officer on the inquiry report were forged. Lastly contends that multiple orders for dismissal were passed and as such none of the dismissal orders can be sustained. Learned counsel for Respondent No, 3, on the other hand, contends that it was never pleaded in the trial Court that the charge sheet or appointment order of the Inquiry Officer was issued by incompetent person. He, however, contends that the Personnal Manager was as much answerable to the employer as the General Manager and in any case Personnal Manager acted under the direction of the General Manager who passed the ultimate dismissal order on 18.9.90. Regarding the last contention, learned counsel argues that three orders were passed on the same day and the two of these were withdrawn and the 3rd order (impugned order) stand in the field and as such there is nothing wrong with the said order on this score.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with both these writ petitions with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now as stated by me above, the case set up before the learned trial Court and for that matter even present writ petitions is that one fine morning petitioners in both these cases were informed that the orders dismissing them from service stand pasted on the notice board. The case was that neither charge sheet nor any inquiry took place. Now the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Labour Court and learned Appellate Tribunal are that the charge sheet was served, it was replied. Inquiry was conducted.
Charges were proved and thereafter the petitioners were dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not question the said findings. However, presses said objections as noted above.
4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners refers me to the statement of Yousaf Hussain RW-3.
In cross-examination this witness stated that the Pakistan Service Limited is owner of the Hotel. He admitted that in all matters pertaining to Hotel General Manager is answerable to the said owner.
There is a Chief Estate Manager. and then there is Personnal Manager. Now with reference to the provisions of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the learned counsel argues that since it is General Manager who is answerable to the employer/owners, the said document issued by the Personnal Manager would be without lawful authority as not having been issued by the said General Mahager.
5. Argument appears to be attractive at first sight but cannot stand further scrutiny. It is matter of record that the Personnal Manager is subordinate to the said General Manager. The dismissal order, admittedly, passed by the said General Manager clearly indicates that the said 8 documents were issued by the Personnal Manager with his taint approval. The said order duly referred to the said charge sheet, appointment of Inquiry Officer and proceedings taken by the latter. Nothing therefore, turns on the said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. So far as the said second contention pertaining to the forgoing of 'signatures of the Inquiry Officer on the report is concerned, I find that this plea was not taken at the relevant time when trial was in progress. Even otherwise I find that the learned Appellate Tribunal had proceeded to compare the signatures on the report with the admitted signatures of the Inquiry Officer and to conclude that the signatures on the report are of the said Officer. Now Article 84 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 authorises a Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of a person. The said comparison has been undertaken .by the learned Appellate Tribunal in exercise of said powers and this Court while hearing these writ petitions would not be holding to the contrary.
7. As to the said third contention, I confronted learned counsel as to at what point of time three orders of dismissal were passed as they bear the same date. Learned counsel is. unable to answer and there is nothing on record in this behalf. This being so, two orders having been withdrawn, third order stands.
8. No other point has been urged. Both the writ petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.