DECISION This is an appeal against an order of -the learned Chairman, West Pakistan Labour Court (Central Zone), Lahore, dated 18th April 1970, whereby the learned Court granted permission to the respondent to dismiss the appellant from service on the charges of misconduct. The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 28th July 1969, for disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establish--ment. He was called upon on 28th July 1-969, to submit his reply within three days. The appellant submitted an application under Standing Order, 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, with reference to the charge-sheet, on 2nd August 1969. The respon--d9nt did not treat this application as a reply to the charge-sheet.
It again called upon the appellant on 12th August 1969, to sumbit a reply to the charge-sheet within three days "failing which it will be assumed that you accept the allegations contained in the charge-sheet served on you and necessary action will be taken against you." The appellant did not send any additional reply, except the one contained in the letter dated 2nd August 1969, to the District Manager. The District Manager on the failure of the appellant to submit any specific reply to the charge-sheet, came to the following conclusion: "The letter dated 11-8-1969 referred ^to above was received by him on 12-8-1969 and till today (16- 8-1969) he has failed to furnish his reply to the charge-sheet.
It is, therefore, assumed that he has accepted the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. This being the position there is no need to hold any regular enquiry when, the charge has not been denied.
I, therefore, order that an application under section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, should be filed in the West Pakistan Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore, seeking dismissal from service of Mr. Abdul Razaque, Junior Clerk.
3. The learned Labour Court, after reproducing the contents of the application of the respondent under section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), came to the following conclusion: "Whatever might have been the explanation of the respond dent in response to the charge-sheet that was delivered to him it was undoubtedly the official duty of the respon--dent to submit a reply to the charge-sheet sent to him by his appointing and removing authority. The respon--dent has failed to provide any justification for believing that the charge-sheet was at variance with the requirements of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. The respondent's reply indicates that he is persisting in an unnecessarily bellicose attitude towards the applicant and does the applicant into the charges against the respondent institute trying to obstruct the progress of the formal enquiry.
For all the above-stated reasons I am convinced that the applicant is justified in seeking the permission of this Court for dismissing the respondent Abdul Razzaq from service on the charges of misconduct."
4. The object underlying section 37 of the repealed Ordinance was to protect the interest of the workman through the Industrial Court. Under certain circumstances, the employer without the permission of the Court could not dismiss a workman. The protection granted under section 37 of the repealed Ordinance are not illusory but substantial one. A duty is cast upon the Court to see as to whether there is any justification for granting permission. In this connection, i would be necessary to find out as to whether there is a prima facie case of misconduct or not. This could not be achieved without some evidence, specially when the charge of misconduct! is denied. A perusal of the reply to the application for permission to dismiss the appellant would show that the appellant has denied the charge of misconduct. I have gone through the alleged letter dated 2-8- 1969, addressed by the appellant to the respondent. A perusal of the letter shows that it is not only an application under Standing Order 18, but also the reply to the charge-sheet. The allegations made in the charge-sheet are denied in the letter. In the face of the denial of the charge in the letter dated 2-8-1969, and also the denial of the charge in the reply to the application under section 37 of the e repealed Ordinance, it was necessary for the Court to satisfy itself as to whether there was any case of misconduct so as to grant permission to dismiss the appellant.
5. Admittedly, no enquiry was held by the District Manager into the allegations against the appellant, In the face of clear denial of the charges of misconduct in the letter, dated 2-8-1969, no inference can be drawn that the appellant admitted the allegations made against him. An enquiry was necessary" into the charges against the appellant before permission could be granted to dismiss him. I have come to the conclusion, in the absence of any enquiry as to the misconduct of the appellant, that permission to dismiss him should not have been granted. I would, therefore, allow the appeal and refuse to grant permission. It would, however, be open to the respondent to hold an enquiry against the charges of misconduct against the appellant in accordance with law, after giving him full opportunity to defend himself in keeping with the principles of natural justice.
The reply-dated 2-8-1969 may be treated as reply to the charges against the appellant, if the Department wishes to proceed with the enquiry into the misconduct of the appellant.
The respondent, to pay Rs. 100.00 as cost to the appellant,