1. ' Liaqat Manzoor petitioner was employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Frontier Co-operative Bank Ltd., Haripur Branch who was suspended on 4th September, 1975 and later on his services were terminated on 24th April, 1977 with effect from 3rd February, 1977 on the charges of his having been involved in an offence under section 6, Gambling Act vide attested copy Exh. D. X. On file.
2. ' The petitioner served the respondent-employer General Manager referred to as employer for the sake of brevity and convenience with grievance notice dated 15th April, 1977 which was replied by the respondent through registered letter, dated 22nd April, 1977, losing almost all hopes for his re- instatement from the employer side, the present petition under section 25-A was preferred with a prayer for re-instatement after cancellation of the dismissal order with full back benefits including the salary of the suspension period. Respondent submitted written statement and evidence was recorded for and against.
3. ' I heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I was conducted through the record of the case.
4. ' The main contentions of the petitioner are that his services were terminated within the preview of Standing Order 12 read with sub-clauses (4) and (5). Learned counsel further submitted that no enquiry whatever was conducted and the right of opportunity of hearing was also denied to the petitioner which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under Standing Order 15 of West Pakistan Ordinance VI of 1968.
5. ' It was further submitted that in spite of the conviction of the petitioner under section 6 of the Gambling Act by a Magistrate 1st Class the employer was bound under the law to hear the petitioner and hold enquiry in order to prove the charges of misconduct against him.
6. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent contended that the employees of Co- operative Bank are not governed by the provisions of I. R. O. Or Standing Orders Ordinance but their services are governed by Statutory Rules framed in this respect. As such the petition is incompetent and should be dismissed.
7. ' A perusal of!. R.
0. And West Pakistan Standing Order Ordinance, 1968, would show that much stress has been laid on the definition of a workman as provided under section 2, sub-clause (38) of I. R.
0. And section 2, clause (i) of the West Pakistan Standing Ordinance, 1968. The definition given in the latter Ordinance would show that a "workman" means any person employed in any industry or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for life or reward. In the same way employer is defined who means the owner of industrial or commercial establishment to which this Ordinance for the time being applies and includes No. 1 and No, 2 in any industrial establishment under any Department of the Federal or any Provincial Government the authority appointed by such Government in this behalf or where no such authority is so appointed the head of the Department.
(iii) In any other industrial or commercial establishment any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of his establishment. In the same way industry and commercial establishment have been defined which according to my mind are so much comprehensive words that a bare reading of their definition would make it clear that the petitioner employer definitely fall within the definition as provided under the Labour Laws. As such I hold that the petitioner is a workman and the petition is competent.
8. ' The next question which falls for determination is whether the service of the petitioner were properly terminated within the provisions of Standing Order 13, clauses (4) and (5) read with Standing Order 15 of Ordinance No, VI of 1968 and if not what are penal consequences of such an action.
9. ' It is admitted on record that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner when arrested for the first time for Gambling he was put under suspension was continuing with his work on another seat other than the post of cashier. The suspension order was passed on 24th September, 1975, and it was operative till the services of the petitioner were terminated on 29th April, 1977 with a retrospective effect from the date of order of conviction of 3rd February, 1977. It is further admitted that when the services of the petitioner were terminated he was not paid the remaining pay of the suspension period except the subsistence allowance allowed under suspension to the employee.
10. Although he worked regularly during the long period from 24th September, 1975 till 29th April, 1977.
11. ' Much stress was placed on Service Regulation 32 and the amendment of the same vide attested copies on file which was submitted that the employer was not bound to hold enquiry as is clear from the amendment on the basis of Resolution No, 17, dated 14th December, 1964 vide copy Exh. P.
12. W. 2/R-1 three sheets. A perusal of the Rules specially rule 32, sub-clause (3) would also show that the requirements of this Rule can be waived but without injustice to the employee.
13. ' Anyhow as I have already come to the conclusion that the petitioner falls within the definition of workman and his services will be governed by the Labour Laws contained in I. R.0. And West Pakistan Standing Order Ordinance, Act No, VI of 1968. In this respect for the sake of analogy reference can be made to PLD 1975 Kar. 274 and Jawaid Mehmood v. Pakistan National Centre and another.
14. I am unable to agree that since the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge before a Magistrate 1st Class to have committed the offences under section 6 of the Gambling Ordinance therefore this finding of the Magistrate was sufficient to absolve the employer from holding the enquiry as contemplated under Standing Orders 12 and 15 of Act No, VI of 1968 is basically wrong and in this respect the provisions of the orders are also clear and reference can be made to PLJ 1975 Tr. C1 (Lab.) 359 wherein the similar situation the workman were terminated without enquiry as the proceedings of the Magistrate were considered sufficient but in the present case no proceedings or any enquiry was conducted by the employer thus provided under Standing Order 12 or 15 referred to above.
15. I will also add that in cases of plea of guilty in petty offences like section 6 of the Gambling Ordinance it cannot be presumed that the petitioner-accused had pleaded guilty which amounted to the fact that he had actually committed offence are in abeyance where the accused facing the long and protracted trial find themselves unable to pull on with the endless proceedings due to the waste of time and expense of coming and going to attend the Court and it is considered advisable to plead guilty with an understanding that some normal fine will be imposed in order to get rid of the agonies of trial. In the present case I also find that case of the petitioner under section 6 of the Gambling Ordinance actually commenced on 6th December, 1975 and finally ended on 3rd February, 1977 I am of the considered opinion that this inordinate delay of the proceedings before the Magistrate must have been very harsh for the petitioner and the possibility cannot be excluded that the plea of guilty of the petitioner was a device to get rid of the Court proceedings.
16. In that situation it was incumbent on the employer-respondent to have afforded an opportunity to explain the allegations against him and as the law requires that this domestic enquiry and show cause-notice is a must. ##TSE# The mandatory provisions of the law has not been complied with.
17. Therefore the dismissal of the petitioner is illegal and he is entitled to be re-instated. Accordingly I set aside the order of termination and order for re-instatement of the petitioner and the petitioner should be considered to be on roll in the service of the respondent from the date of his termination with past full benefits including the pay of the suspension period. PLJ 1975 Tr. C. (Lab.) 36