1. This is an appeal against an award dated the April 3, 1969. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 31 of the Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance. The respondent was a conductor in the G. T. S., Layallpur. He was charge-sheeted for commission of certain acts of misconduct and after enquiry, was dismissed by the District Manager w.e.f. 14th of October 1966. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was riot given a personal hearing by the District Manager and therefore, the order passed by him and the subsequent orders passed in appeal and revision were bad in law. The learned Court came to the following conclusion. "After considering para. 4 of Standing Order 13, I am of the opinion that, whether a formal show-cause notice is issued or not, an opportunity of hearing must be given to a workman before an order is passed against him. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was not heard by the District Manager. The learned Chairman of the Court, on the basis of the conclusion arrived at, ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with the observation that the employer could pass fresh order after giving an opportunity to the respondent to be heard.
2. 2.Mr . Naseerul Hassan, the learned Representative for the Corporation has raised two points before me. He contended in the first place that the Standing Order 13 (4) does not cast any duty upon the District Manager to give a personal hearing to the workman. Standing Order 13 (4) reads as under:- "No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him.
3. The approval of the manager of the establishment or where there is no manager, of the employer is required in every case of dismissal and, when circumstances appear to warrant it the manager or the employer may institute independent enquiries before dealing with charges against a workman."
4. It is true as contended by Mr. Naseerul Hasan that the above provision of the Standing Order does not cast any duty on the District Manager to hear the workmen before he passes any order of punishment. The admitted position is that after a workman is found to have committed any misconduct he is given a charge-- sheet in respect thereof. He is required to submit his explanation within a certain period of time. After the explanation is not found to be satisfactory an Enquiry Officer is appointed. The workman is afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the wit-- nesses for the Department and is allowed to produce his defence. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submits his report to the District Manager. If the Enquiry Report is against the workman he is given a further notice to show, cause why a certain punishment should not be awarded against him. The workman submits his explanation and thereafter the District Manager passes the order. The short question is as to whether in the absence of any thing specific under Standing Order 13 (4) the District Manager should have given an opportunity to the workman to be heard if he so desires. In a series of cases the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the Principle of Natural Justice must be read in all enactments, The Principle of Natural Justice require that no one should be condemned without being given an opportunity to be heard. if the workman desired to be heard by the District Manager, the District Manager before depriving the workman of his livelihood should have given him an opportunity to put before him the circumstances in justification of his innocence. It would be sufficient compliance of the law if the workman is heard either' orally or the workman had submitted his defence in writing. In short from the order of the District Manager it must appeal that the workman was heard before he was condemned, or that an opportunity was given to the workman for hearing but he did not avail of it.
3. The next point that Mr. Naseerul Hassan urged was that relying on a certain decision of the High Court that the respondent should not have been re-instated. In the case relied upon by' Mr. Naseerul Hassan the High Court came to the conclusion that the Appellate Authority had not given an opportunity to the workman to be heard. The High Court therefore set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and ordered the Appellate Authority to hear the workman and then pass any order that it thought necessary. The High Court did not order re-instatement of the workman. The case before the High Court is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In the present case if the order of the District Manager is set aside the workman is relegated to his old position. At the time when the District Manager passed the order dismissing him from service the workman was in service. If the order of District Manager therefore is set aside the workman will be relegated to his old position and would be entitled to the wages that he may have drawn in the absence of any order by the District Manager. In the case before the High Court if the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside the workman was relegated to the position that he was at that time when the Appellate Order was passed. At the time when the Appellate Order was passed, the workman was not in service. In these circumstances I do not think that the Order of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court can be set aside. The Appeal is dismissed.