The three petitioners in this case are employees of Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (respondent No. 2). Separate show-cause notices were sent to their various addresses in accordance with the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, under registered postal cover. Similar show-cause notices were published in `Daily Imroze dated 2nd February, 1976. Notices sent through the postal medium were, however, received back unserved with the - endorsement that the whereabouts of the addressees were not known.
2. On 7th February, 1976, the Inquiry Officer, appointed for the purpose sent notices by post to the petitioners for their appearance on 9th February, 1976. Similar notices were also published in 'Daily Imroze' Multan, dated 7th February, 1976. No inquiry, however, could be held on 9th February, 1976, and therefore, the cases were adjourned to 17th February, 1976.
3. Fresh notices were again repeated through post as well as 'Daily Imroze for 17th February, 1976.
The petitioners, however, did not appear with the result that ex parse proceedings were taken. The inquiry report was submitted to the General Manager who vide his order dated 1 st March, 1976, dismissed all the three petitioners from service.
4. The petitioners challenged the order of the General Manager by applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which were dismissed by the Labour Court, vide orders dated 12th January, 1978. Appeals by the petitioners, however, partly succeeded. Respondent No. 1 held that there was no service of notices sent, for the second inquiry at their houses, as the petitioners were running about, to avoid arrest and their whereabouts were also not known. It therefore, concluded that the ex parse proceedings were invalid and directed that the management may proceed to inquire again into the matter, on the basis of the show-cause notices already issued, through Press and the post. The petitioners now challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal directing fresh inquiry through th-. Present petition.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the Tribunal did not accept the service of notices for the second inquiry, sent through post, it should have applied the same reasoning to the service of show-cause notices attempted through the same media on 2nd February. 1976. The precise contention being raised is that as the proceedings of the second inquiry had been declared invalid for non-service of notices on the petitioners at their home addresses, the same findings should have been given with regard to the show-cause notices sent through post on the same addresses. The result of acceptance of this contention will be that the Management will not at all be in a position to proceed against the petitioners with regard to the misconduct.
6. The brief facts leading to this petition, according to the respondent, are that on 19th January, 1976, the petitioners staged an illegal strike. The contention of the petitioners was that it was not a strike but a lock-out by the Management. On 29th January, 1976, the Management got registered a case against the petitioners under sections 148/149/452, P. P. C. Another case; under the Telegraph Act was registered against them on 30th January,, 1976. A third one under section 380, P. P. C. Was also registered on 31st January, 1976. The warrants of arrest had also been issued against the petitioners in all the three cases and they were running about to avoid arrest and to get themselves released on bail. It is, however, admitted that the petitioners had never been arrested and they throughout remained on bail.
7. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that strictly speaking the finding of the Tribunal was erroneous. According to him the Tribunal took the view, as it did, only to enable the petitioners to avoid the result of an ex parte inquiry and to let them face the same again, to defend the case against them. His plea was that the service of the show--cause notices as well as the service of the other notices for inquiry was perfectly sufficient and legal and it could not have been declared to be illegal by the Tribunal. It was argued that the respondent-employer did not challenge the order of the Tribunal just as it did not grudge the petitioners defending cases against them in the inquiry.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. It has not been alleged before me that the addresses on which the notices had been sent through post were not the correct addresses. It has also not been stated that the newspaper which carried the notices had no circulation in the area where the petitioners were trying to secure bail. The requirement of law as given in Standing Order 15(4) is that the workman shall be informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within a month of its occurrence or knowledge by the employer. The employer will thus be fully complying with law if it gives a notice in writing, personally to the workman, if he is present in the establishment or' through post on his last known address, if he is not available. The employee in this case gave the notices through Press also. I have, therefore, no doubt that purpose of law had been fulfilled and holding otherwise would be unduly encouraging a workman to evade service.
9. Further, the notices in question could have been received by any of the members of the petitioners' family and the petitioners could have been informed. Alternatively, they shall be deemed to have been informed of the alleged misconduct through the newspaper. The petitioners in the circumstances are stretching too much the reasons given for the equitable relief conferred on them by the Tribunal, so that they could defend themselves. I am, therefore, quite clear in my mind that the respondent had done all that it could do to serve the petitioners. The law stood complied with and, therefore, I do not find any illegality calling for interference.
10. As stated above, the order of the Tribunal though equitable and beneficial to the petitioners, did not strictly follow the letter of law. The petitioners apart from benefitting themselves from the indulgence shown by the Tribunal, are abusing it so as to avoid completely the inquiry, on the basis of a situation created by themselves. It will, therefore, defeat the very law under which the relief is being claimed, if I accept the contention of the petitioners.
11. The petitioners have already been much benefited for the reason that respondent No. 2 has not challenged the part of the order of the Tribunal against them. The effect of the order of the Tribunal is that the petitioners shall have to defend themselves against the alleged charges of misconduct.
No hardship is, therefore, being caused to them.
12. It may also be noted here that in view of my judgment in W. P. 4129-78 the order of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction, as no appeal lay before the Tribunal against any order passed by a Labour Court, while deciding a case under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance read with Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commerce Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance--- 1968. However, as respondent No. 2 has not challenged that order I am not in a position to extend any relief to it. I can, however, refuse any further relief to the petitioner as they are attempting to get additional benefit over and above the illegal gain they have already secured.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. As the petitioners are workers of respondent No. 2, the parties shall bear their own costs.