' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) was moved in the Court whereby the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, dated 12th February, 1977, has been challenged on various grounds.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Dispenser with the respondent- Company since 1969. On 30th August, 1974. The wife of one Muhammad Afsar was unwell and he went out to treat her along with bag of medicines containing 54 items, He was caught by the Security Officer Nur Muhammad at the gate. The company for the first time introduced Medical Rules on 12th August, 1974. The incident took place on 30th August, 1974. The enquiry was conducted and Nur Muhammad, Security Officer was asked a question as to why he has for the first time stopped the petitioner from going out for treatment. The answer was that he had received order on that very day. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 30th October, 1974.
3. The petitioner went before the Punjab Labour Court No, II which by order dated 30th August, 1976, set aside the order of dismissal, but did not allow back benefits which had to depend on fresh enquiry. The petitioner went in appeal and the Company filed cross objections. The appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and accepted the cross-objections of the Company. The petitioner's allegation throughout before the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court, the Appellate Court and in this petition has been that he has been victimised on account of his having been elected as General Secretary of the Employees' Union against the wishes of the respondent company defeating their candidate. None of the Court below has dealt with the allegation of malice alleged in this case. The rules have been introduced for the first time against the past practice of visiting the patients outside, eighteen days before the petitioner was caught. It has also to be seen whether it was a case of theft or violation of the rules. The most solemn proceedings vitiate if fraud or malice is proved. Such an order has to be declared without lawful authority in the exercise of or power of judicial review. I order accordingly. The case is remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal who will consider the case of the petitioner in the light of this order. Parties to bear their