1. These are two identical petitions filed by the petitioner, which is a Limited Company, and wherein both respondents in the petitions were employed on permanent basis. They call into question the two orders of Junior Labour Court and Labour Court which had ordered the re-instatement of respondents with back benefits and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are as under:----- The petitioner issued certain instructions in 1974 to the head of the `, Department which were sought to be conveyed to respondents in both the petitions, but they are alleged to have refused to receive those instructions. The result was that the petitioner issued show-cause notice to the respondents in the two petitions as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them.
3. One of the respondent does not admit to have received said notice while the other has replied to the same and refused the allegation. The domestic enquiry was constituted by the petitioner, and the respondents in both- petitions co-operated in the enquiry proceedings, and attended the same. In both cases the Enquiry Officers gave their reports against the respondents, and consequently, the petitioner dismissed the respondents. The respondents thereafter gave grievance notice to the petitioner, and thereafter filed applications for their re-instatement under section 25-A of 1. R. O. Of 1969. The Junior Labour Court accepted these applications on 7th March, 1975 by one composite order and directed re-instatement of the respondents with back benefits.
4. The petitioner appealed to the Labour Court, but the appeal was dismissed op 7th, May, 1975, and hence this petition was filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, and respondent No. 1 in both the petitions. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, for the petitioner has contended that the order of both the Labour Courts below is mainly based on the interpretation of clauses 2 and 3 of Standing Order 15 of West Pakistan (Industrial and Commercial Employment) Standing Orders ordinance, 1968, as to whether the misconduct in question was a misconduct deserving of minor punishment or deserving dismissal.
6. Mr. Shaikh has contended that both the Courts below have in effect conceded that the domestic enquiry was proper, and he submitted that they had no business thereafter to take into consideration the irrelevant allegation of the disciplinary proceedings being prompted on account of trade union activity of the respondents. Because, if the misconduct was proved in the domestic enquiry then a person found guilty of misconduct cannot escape the consequences only, because he is a Trade Union leader. Mr. Shaikh further asserts that the Labour Courts below acted with material irregularity in taking into consideration the irrelevant question that two other workers found guilty of the same charge were forgiven by the Management, while the respondents were dismissed. Mr. Shaikh asserts that these two persons had tendered apology, and hence they were pardoned, and so those cases were completely different.
7. Mr. Syed Hamid Ali, on the other hand has contended that evidence has been led by the respondents in this petition before the Junior Labour Court to the effect that there was no domestic enquiry held in respect of any disciplinary action or for the dismissal of the respondents. Mr. Hamid Ali, states that he has got to rely on that evidence and discuss the same and mainly he will be basing his case on that evidence copy of which he has filed in this petition.
8. But unfortunately the evidence led by respondents has not been taken into consideration by any of the two labour Courts, below and therefore, it would not be possible for me to take the same into consideration as I am not exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of facts. Facts have to be considered by the Labour Courts, and they have to give their decision in respect of these facts. The High Court in it's supervisory jurisdiction is merely concerned with the question whether the decision is arbitrary or based on facts, and whether any irrelevant facts have been taken into consideration or relevant, and material facts have been left out of consideration, High Court does not usually interfere merely on the basis of an incorrect decision on facts. It appears that the two Labour Courts below have proceeded on assump--tion that there was a proper enquiry in the dismissal of the respondents and have not considered the facts in respect of that enquiry, and yet they have proceeded to re-instate the respondents on the basis of a particular view of the provisions of Standing Order 15 (2) (3) of Standing Order Ordinance.
9. The net effect of the arguments of the learned counsels on both sides is that the Labour Courts have not taken into consideration the relevant facts of the domestic enquiry or the evidence led before them in respect of that enquiry or have taken irrelevant factors into consideration and therefore, their orders cannot be allowed to stand. Since both the counsel have attacked those orders and since it was meet and proper that the facts in respect of the domestic enquiry should have been proved into by the Labour Courts, but that has not been done therefore, the matter has to be sent back to the Labour Court for a decision on merits in respect of the Domestic Enquiry, and also for probe of further points that were raised by the respondents in this petition in their applications before the Junior Court. No further evidence in the case is to be recorded, as the parties have agreed that the matters can be disposed of on the basis of existing evidence. The net result is that the order: of the two labour Courts below are set aside as having been passed without considering the facts of the case, and the matters are remanded, to the fifth Labour Court for fresh decision in respect of both respondents in. Accordance with law after, notice to the parties. The matter can not be sent to the Junior Labour Court, as they are not existing any more.
10. The contention of Mr. Hassan Ali Shaikh, that the petitioner had a right to dismiss the respondents, under Standing Order No. 15 (3) has not been decided as the matter has to be remanded back for decision on facts on the submissions of both the learned counsel of the respondents as well as the learned counsel of the petitioner, and it would be inappropriate to decide that point at this stage.
11. Both the petitions are, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs.