' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---By means of this judgment, I propose to dispose of four matters i,e, L.A. No,85 of 2005, L.A. No,86 of 2005 filed by Factory Manager, Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd., Samasatta, Bahawalpur (hereinafter to be referred as appellant/employer) and L.A. No,87 of 2005 as well as L.A. No,88 of 2005 filed by Imam Bakhsh and Muhammad Iqbal, respectively (hereinafter to be referred as respondents/Employees), as all these arise out of similar questions of law and facts, emerging from the impugned order dated 18-1-2005 passed by the learned Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur.
2. Through Labour Appeals Nos.85 of 2005 and 86 of 2005 the appellant/Employer seeks annulment of the above-mentioned order of learned Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur setting aside the dismissal of the respondents/Employees and awarding them compensation equivalent to 20 months basis pay and other admissible dues while allowing their grievance petitions. Whereas, through Labour Appeals Nos.87 of 2005 and 88 of 2005 Imam Bakhsh and Muhammad Iqbal employees pray that amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court equivalent to 20 months' basic pay, be enhanced to 30 months' basic pay with all admissible dues.
3. The facts briefly stated are that Imam Bakhsh and Muhammad Iqbal were employees of Gulistan Textile Mills Limited, Samasatta, Bahawalpur when they were dismissed from service w,e,f, 7-8-2004 vide order dated 3-9-2004 under Order 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. They were also advised vide the said order to collect their dues, if any, from the office during working days after submitting the Mills' property (Time Card and Rashan Card, etc.). On coming to know of said order, Imam Baksh and Muhammad Iqbal respondents/Employees filed separate Grievance Petitions under section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 read with Order 12 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 before the Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur challenging their dismissal claiming that same was without any notice/inquiry etc, and also that no notice for personal hearing was given to them before passing the impugned order and that all the proceedings for dismissal of their services were liable to be set aside and they were entitled to be awarded compensation of 30 months' basic pay plus house rent, etc. The learned Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur formulated the following points for determination:-- ' Points:
(1) Whether the petition is hopelessly time-barred?
(2) Whether the petitioner was dismissed from service in consequence of illegal inquiry proceedings and thus dismissal order of the petitioner is wrong and illegal?
(3) What should the order be?
To prove their respective cases the respondents/Employees appeared as P.W.-1 and by tendering documents Exh. P-1 to Exh.P-6 closed their evidence. On the other hand, appellant/Employer produced Zubair Hussain, Admin. Officer as RW-1 and closed its evidence by tendering documents Exh. R-1 to Exh. R-13. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur held the Grievance Petitions within time and while holding the dismissal/termination orders as wrong and unlawful accepted the Grievance Petitions vide impugned order dated 18-1- 2005 and awarded compensation to the respondents/Employees equivalent to 20 months basis pay and other admissible dues in lieu of reinstatement, as provided under section 46(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Hence, these Labour Appeals.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/Employer has argued with vehemence that the learned Labour Court was wrong in holding the Grievance Petitions of the respondents/Employees within time. Submission of the learned counsel is that order of dismissal was passed on 3-8-2004 whereas Grievance Petitions were filed on 13-10-2004 hence the same were beyond the period of two months as required by section 46(3) of the said Ordinance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/Employees contends that the dismissal orders were never communicated to them at all and it was for the first time on 15-9-2004 when the respondents/Employees came to know of the passage of the said order during proceedings before the authority under Payment of Wages Act, where the respondents had filed application for recovery of wages and in reply to the said application it was pointed out by the appellant/Employer that respondents stood dismissed from service and even in the said reply as well the date of dismissal was not shown. The respondents, however, on the same day i,e, 15-9- 2004 served Grievance Notice upon the appellant/Employer by sending the same through registered post and thereafter filed the present Grievance Petitions on 13-10-2004, hence the same were within time.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record.
6. On careful appraisal of evidence available before this Court, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents/Employees that they for the first time came to know about the passage of their dismissal order on 15-9-2004, appears to be correct and the learned counsel for the appellant/Employer has not been able to controvert the findings of the learned Labour Court holding the Grievance Petitions of the respondents/Employees within time as there is no evidence on record from the appellant side as to when the order of dismissal was conveyed to the respondents. Therefore, the findings of the learned Labour Court holding the Grievance Petitions to be within time are maintained.
7. So far as legality and validity of the order of dismissal is concerned, the learned Labour Court after thrashing the record rightly came to the conclusion that the said order was passed not only in clear disregard of the requirements of Order 15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but the same also suffered from procedural infirmities. Before proceeding further, it would not be out of place to reproduce the language of Order No,15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which reads as under:-- "No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct (within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employed) and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of (the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal) and, the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman: (Provided that the workman proceeded against may, if he so desires for his assistance in the enquiry, nominate any workman employed in that establishment and the employer shall allow the workman so nominated to be present in the enquiry to assist the workman proceeded against and shall not deduct his wages if the enquiry is held during his duty hours)"
' According to the requirements of the above-mentioned Clause, before initiation of inquiry of misconduct involving dismissal of an employee, it is mandatory that there should be a direction by competent authority for holding the departmental inquiry. There is nothing on the record to show that before initiation of proceedings any show-cause notice was issued by the competent authority. Similarly, no evidence was brought to this effect before the learned Labour Court. The only evidence available on record is the order of dismissal having been issued by the Inquiry Office and not by the Employer or the Factory Manager within the meaning of above mentioned Clause.
The learned counsel for the appellant/Employer when asked as to whether any such notice having been issued by the Employer or the Factory Manager, was available on record or could be produced in Court, the answer was in the negative. The appellant/Employer before the learned Labour Court produced copy of notice of misconduct, copy of notice of inquiry, copy of publication in daily "Sutluj" dated 28-7-2004 and the dismissal order dated 3-8-2004. None of these documents indicate that any competent authority ever directed for initiation of departmental inquiry against the respondents/Employees. Therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly held the order of dismissal as wrong and unlawful as neither any inquiry report nor proceedings of the said inquiry were produced before the said Court. The findings of the learned Labour Court are accordingly up heed.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Employer has lastly argued that against the order of dismissal, the learned Labour Court could not grant compensation to the respondents/Employees as the same is admissible only in case of termination. But when asked that if the order of the learned Labour Court is considered to have been passed against a dismissal order and such dismissal order is set aside and respondents/Employees are reinstated in service with all back benefits, would the appellant/Employer be ready to accept the same, the learned counsel answered in the negative because in such an eventuality the appellant had to reinstate the respondents/Employees in service firstly as their employees and secondly had also to pay the entire back benefits which perhaps would not be acceptable to his clients. Therefore, I feel that the learned Labour Court was correct in treating the order of dismissal as one of termination and rightly passed a direction for payment of compensation equivalent to 20 months' basic salary with admissible benefits.
9. After pronouncement of the order by this Court about dismissal of appellant/Employer's appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that number of months for which basic salary is to be paid to the respondents/Employees may be reduced in the interest of justice. With the concurrence of both the learned counsel as well as the respondents/Employees present in Court, the order of the learned Labour Court directing payment of compensation equivalent to 20 months' basic pay, is modified and it is directed that appellant/Employer shall pay compensation to the respondents/Employees equivalent to 14 months' basic pay with all other admissible dues, on or before 30th of May, 2005. Failure on the part of the appellant/Employee in payment of compensation equivalent to 14 months' basic salary, within the above stipulated period; will be considered as non-compliance of this Court's order within the meanings of Contempt of Court Ordinance.
10. With above modification in the order of the learned Labour Court, the Labour Appeals Nos.85 and 86 of 2005 are dismissed.
11. Since, in para. 9 supra, with the consonance of both the parties the period of 20 months' basic salary, for which compensation was ordered to be paid to the respondents/Employees has been reduced to 14 months' basic salary; therefore, Labour Appeals Nos.87 and 88 of 2005 filed by the respondents/Employees are dismissed, being without any force.