' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 18-12-2003 the respondent No,1 filed a grievance petition under section 46 of the I.R.O., 2002. After referring to a charge sheet earlier issued on 17-8-1994, his dismissal from service and his reinstatement on 14-2-1996, he stated that he contested elections as an Organizer of the Jiay Mazdoor Group. He made some complaints for non-supply of some safety equipment's. However, he was issued a warning on 20-6-2003 and he was threatened with dismissal from service. He informed the General Secretary of the CBA Union. Then there is reference to a charge sheet and appointment of an Inquiry Officer. The CBA approached the NIRC to restrain the appellant from resorting to undue labour practice. He was dismissed from service on 20-10- 2003 without any written order. He accordingly prayed for his reinstatement. The written statement was filed. Objection to the maintainability of the grievance petition was raised with reference to the pending proceedings in the NIRC. It was further stated that a charge-sheet was served and inquiry was conducted. However, no specific reply was given in response to the allegation that the dismissal was ordered without a written order. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment, dated 16-12-2004 the learned Punjab Labour Court, Rawalpindi, allowed the grievance petition and ordered his reinstatement with all the back-benefits, I may further note here that an application filed by the appellant for producing a written termination order was disallowed on the same date.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends with reference to Messrs Shell Pakistan Ltd. Through Legal Affairs Advisor and Attorney v. Aurangzeb Khan 2005 PLC 424 that during the pendency of proceedings in the NIRC, the grievance petition was not competent. He also questions the refusal of the learned Labour Court to grant permission to produce the written order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1, on the other hand, contends that the application before the NIRC was filed long before the said dismissal of the respondent. According to him, no plea was taken in the written statement and it was neither suggested to the respondent nor it was stated by the witness of the appellant that a written order was passed for dismissal.
3. I have gone through the records of the learned Labour Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It is categorically stated in para-16 of the grievance petition that no written order of dismissal was passed and it was orally conveyed to him on 25-10-2003 at the gate of the employer organization. In para.12 of the written statement, on merits, paras-16 and 17 were stated to have been admitted to the extent of the receipt of the grievance notice and its reply. However, it was neither stated that any written order was passed nor any particulars thereof were given.
4. The respondent entered the witness box as PW-3 on 19-8-2004. No suggestion was given to him,.
Neither he was confronted with any written order of dismissal. Ibrahim Arif, Training Manager, appeared as R.W.1 on 17-10-2004 and there is not even a slightest reference to any written order of dismissal having been passed in his entire statement. It was on 30-11-2004 that an application was filed seeking permission to produce the dismissal order. It was contested and has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 16-12-2004. In the afore-noted circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court that the dismissal order sought to be produced was not available earlier or that it has been fabricated cannot be interfered with as the presumption could have been drawn from the said circumstances duly reflected on the face of the record.
5. So far as the said objection of the learned counsel to maintainability is concerned, the application is Exh.R.9. It was filed on 26-7-2003 by the general secretary of the Union and the respondent. It was claimed that unfair labour practices are being resorted and it was apprehended that the appellant is going to terminate or remove the members of the Union from service. It will thus, be seen that the said application was filed in a wholly different context long before the dismissal from service. Immediately after being told that he has been dismissed from service, he filed a grievance notice, which was admittedly received by the appellant this notice is Exh.P.1 and is dated 18-10-2003, which was replied on 25-11-2003 vide Exh.P.2. I may note here that even in response to this grievance notice, it was not stated that a written order has been passed or that it has been served when it was specifically alleged that a written order has not been delivered to him.
6. The said objection accordingly has no force. I may note here that even in the said case of Messrs Shell Pakistan Limited through Legal Affairs Advisor and Attorney relied upon by the learned counsel, the objection was overruled.
7. I, therefore, do hold that the dismissal order having been passed in violation of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was correctly set aside by the learned Labour Court. However, an examination of the records including the statement of the respondent recorded by the learned Labour Court do reveal that proceedings were commenced against the respondent by the appellant. Service of charge-sheet as well as conduct of an inquiry and its proceedings are admitted. A However, this is subject to an objection that a fair inquiry was not conducted. R. W.1 is the Inquiry Officer who has produced the charge sheet, the reply and the proceedings.
8. In the said circumstances, the appeal is dismissed but with the observation that the appellant may proceed further from the said admitted stage of proceedings. No orders as to costs.
9. The records of the learned Labour Court be remitted back immediately.