SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. - Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Muhammad Aslam appellant while employed in the establishment of Lahore Development Authority as Electrician was performing his duties as such during April. 2000. On 24.04 2000 haying received the complaint that the appellant had contacted Maqsood Ahmad for the clearance of Plot No. 585, Neelam Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore through Abdul Mubeen Tariq, Accounts Clerk, D.E.M. Office, L.D.A. Military Inspection Team raided the Canteen of L.D.A., where the appellant was sitting. The appellant gave his confessional statement before Military Inspection Team and admitted having demanded Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from Maqsood Alam for its onward payment, to Abdul Mubeen Tariq for clearance of Plot No 585. A charge-sheet was resultantly issued to the appellant on 08.05.2003 under Punjab Civil Service (E&D) Rules, 1999. The reply was filed by the appellant where he retracted from his confession. The inquiry was heid wherein among others, Maqsood Alam was produced/ The Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty and recommended the punishment of reduction to a lower post. The competent authority, however, after complying with codal formalities, opted for a higher punishment of removal from service. Consequently grievance notice was served and the dismissal order dated 19.07.2000 was challenged through a grievance petition in the Labour Court It was inter alia contended in the grievance petition that the appellant was a workman and as such Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was applicable to him. Therefore, action against him could not have been taken under Efficiency & Discipline Rules 1999 secondly the disagreement of the competent authority for award of major punishment is without .Any reason; thirdly Abdul Mubeen Tariq who was also charge-sheeted on the. Same allegations has been exonerated by the respondents; and lastly that the confession was made under coercion and the petitioner denied the allegation in departmental proceedings and was held guilty by Inquiry Officer without any cogent, evidence. Learned Labour Court through the impugned order dated 20.08.2001, dismissed the grievance petition holding it to be without merit. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the. Appellant has submitted that the action against the appellant was initiated on the recommendation of the Army Monitoring Team. He has argued that the Army Monitoring Team/Cell stood abolished after the revival of the Constitution and powers assigned to such cells stood withdrawn. The action initiated on the basis of recommendation of the Monitoring Team has no legal value. ,Learned counsel' has. Referred to an unreported case of this Court in the case titled "Mehr Warts Hussain V. SHO, etc" (Writ Petition No. 447-2003) to contend that no action can be taken at the behest of the Army Monitoring Team. Learned counsel, has contended that the case of the appellant, falls under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 while the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1999 have no application whereunder the appellant was proceeded. Learned counsel has referred to the case of "Muhammad Yousaf V. Labour Appellate 'Tribunal (NLR 1987 Labour 147) to support his contention. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Court reached-the conclusion that the petitioner is a Workman and Lahore Development Authority is Industrial and Commercial Establishment within the contemplation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Learned Labour Court having reached this conclusion has erred in dismissing the grievance petition as action against the appellant was taken under Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1999. The allegations against the appellant were the sale as levelled against Abdul Mubeen Tariq, who in the identical circumstances was exonerated by the department but a penal action against the appellant was taken. Learned counsel while. Placing reliance on "Inspector General of Police V.
Shafqat Mehmoo" (2003 PLC (CS) 7) has contended that inquiry report was not made available to the appellant, therefore, action amounts to negation of right of hearing to the appellant. Learned counsel hag added that the penalty recommended in the inquiry report was reduction to a lower post but competent authority has removed the appellant from his service. While imposing the higher penalty it was incumbent upon the competent authority to provide opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Learned counsel in this respect has referred to .The case of "Muhammad Younus V.
Secretary, Ministry of Communications and others" (1993 SCMR 122).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has fully supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that there are two types of employees in the establishment of the respondent, namely project employees and the employees of the Head Office. The employees falling in the former category are Governed by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 while the latter category is governed by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999. Lahore Development Authority has framed its own regulations called Lahore Development Authority Regulations, 1978 and terms and conditions of the appellant are governed by Lahore Development Authority Regulations. Learned counsel has referred' to clause (1) of the Regulations. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has assailed the order dated 19.07.2000 without copy of impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, not competent. Learned counsel has been submitted that the inquiry was conducted under Regulation 75 of the E&D Rules, 1999. The Rules, 1975 were repealed through Rule 21 of the 'E&D Rules- 1999. Rules, 1999 do not provide for. Second show-cause notice by the authorized officer. The only requirement is personal hearing and second show- cause notice is not necessary. Appellant was provided personal hearing which fact is evident from Exh. R-15 and Exh. R-11. Learned. Counsel has submitted that the grievance notice has incompetently been served as the same has not been addressed and issued to the competent authority. Learned counsel has referred to "Altaf Hussain v.
D. W. & C. E. (Army) QMG's Branch G.H.Q. Rawalpindi, etc. (PLC 1990 CS 40) to contend that providing the copy of inquiry is not required under law. He has then submitted that the learned Labour Court had. No. Jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner and the terminated employee can only approach the Civil Court. Learned counsel in this respect has placed reliance on "Government of the Punjab v. Rao Shamsher Ali Khan and others." (1987 SCMR 224).
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
5. There is no cavil with the proposition that-the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 is applicable to the case of the appellant. The West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to the employees of the Lahore Development Authority. This issue stands settled through the judgment of this. Court in the case of, "Lahore Development Authority and others v. Abdul Shafiq and others' (1992 PLC 1214). Yet the initiation of action against the appellant udder Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999, has caused no prejudice to the case of appellant. Both the provisions of law that is to say Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999 as well as Ordinance. 1968 provide a charge- sheet;' holding of inquiry.- and thereafter a penal action against the employee, if the allegation of the charge-sheet are found correct. The forum under both the enactments, for redressal of grievance pertaining to action, is the Labour Court The forum and procedure in both the provisions of law is the same, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the appellant if wrong provision of law has been ascribed. The action against the appellant cannot be set at naught merely because a wrong provision of law is quoted.
6. Now adverting to the other objection that the competent authority has not followed the recommendations of inquiry officer, and a higher punishment is awarded without providing an opportunity of hearing, it is admitted fact that the appellant was heard. He was issued a charge- sheet, which was replied by the appellant and in the course of inquiry the appellant has participated in the proceedings. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 196,8 does not provide for a second show-cause notice or a personal hearing subsequent to the inquiry. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. V. Guffar Shah and another (PLD 1981 SC 225) has observed: It was in these circumstances that this Court, while dismissing the petition for special leave to appeal, held that the workman should have been furnished with the copy of the enquiry report and also the second show-cause notice as this was consistent with the rules of neutral justice. This observation must be understood in the context of the peculiar facts of that case and does not lay down the broad principle that they form part of the rules of neutral justice or for that matter to be spelled out from the provision under consideration. Accordingly; this question was not foreclosed by this observation and it was therefore, that leave was granted for its consideration. In tile result, I would hold that from the provision, as is worded, neither the requirement of the second show- cause notice nor of supplying a copy of the report can be spelled out. The High Court erroneously held so on the impression that this requirement' is a part and parcel of the rules of natural justice.
7 It is reflected from the record that the action of the issuance of charge-sheet and holding of inquiry) is by the - competent authority of the employer. Military Inspection Team has not remained involved, either in the course of inquiry or at the time of the award of punishment. The appellant cannot escape Of his liability merely by saying that the action was initiated gt the desire of the Military Inspection Team.
8. Learned Labour Court has held that the link between the appellant and Abdul Mubeen Tariq is not established, therefore, exonerating Abdul Mubeen Tariq, will have no bearing with regard to the punishment awarded to the appellant.
9. Seeing the case from various angles, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This appeal has not merit and is accordingly dismissed.