1. Asad Hussain, Ex-Accounts Clerk of Flashmans--- Hotel, Rawalpindi, filed this petition under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders, Ordinance, 1968 against the respondent --Management for his re-instatement and consequential benefits.
2. The facts' of the case are that about Rs. 46,000 of the respondent were misappropriated regarding which a case has also been registered with the police against the petitioner. Asad Hussain, which is stated to be pending before a Magistrate. The Management dismissed the petitioner with effect from 1-1-1969. The petitioner has agitated that no charge-sheet was issued to him nor any inquiry was held against him and that the Management had arbitrarily dismissed him. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that since the Manage--ment vests with the Custodian of Enemy Property,' the Manager of the Hotel had no authority to order the dismissal of the petitioner without the approval and consent of the Custodian of Enemy Property. The learned counsel for the respondent made a reference to the definition of the employer under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, section 2, sub-clause (c)(iii). In my view the manager would be included in the definition of .the employer because he is a person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the establishment. I would, therefore, over rule this objection of the petitioner.
3. The respondent took up the objection that since the petitioner was not an officer of a Trade Union at the time of his dismissal, therefore, this petition under Standing Order is was riot maintainable. I have considered this aspect of the matter. In my view, if in a case, the services of a workman are terminated who is an officer of a Trade Union and such termination is due to his Trade Union activities, a workman would be entitled to file a petition against the termination of his services under Standing Order of this 1"ourt but I find in the instant case, the I petitioner has been dismissed although it is also alleged by the petitioner that he was an officer of the Trade Union at the time of his dismissal. He that as it may, the fact remains that it is not a case of simple termination but is that of a dismissal. I am of the view that this Court can go into the question of the legality of the dismissal order. Consequently, the objection raised by the respondent is overruled.
4. The sole question for determination in this case is if a charge- sheet or an inquiry was necessary particularly when the petitioner had in writing admitted the liability to make good the loss of Rs.
5. 46,000. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner has admitted in writing vide Exh. R/2 to make good the loss, though according to the petitioner, this writing was obtained from him under pressure and threat when he was locked up in a room in Exh. R/2, the petitioner admitted that out of Rs. 46,000 which have been misappropriated from the accounts of the office, he would try to make good the loss of Rs. 8,000 or ' Rs. 10,000 by 20-12-1969 and the remaining amount he would pay in instalments of three thousands each. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for the cancellation of this document, Exh. R/2, which suit, is stated to be still pending. This tribunal has to come to a conclusion on the evidence led by the parties in this Court.
6. The aforesaid documents Exh. R/2 is alleged to have been executed on 20-12-1968 but the petitioner has mentioned not a word in the telegram Exh. P. W. 3/B. did not send to the employer on 27-3-1969, nor anything is mentioned in the subsequent telegrams, Exh. P. W. 3/C, sent to the Management by the petitioner in reply to the telegram sent by the Management, Exh. P. W. 3/B. P. W.
7. 3, Mr. Hafeez Malik, Manager, Flashmans' Hotel, asserted that the writing, Exh. The petitioner wrote R/2, this witness was never suggested if the writing was extorted from the petitioner under pressure, although It was suggested to the witness regarding the pendency of the civil suit for the cancel-- lation of Exh. R/2, on the basis of coercion. Moreover, the petitioner has not mentioned in his application under Standing Order 18 if the writing was extorted from him under pressure and threats. These circumstances, in my view, do not indicate if the writing Exh. R/2 was extorted from the petitioner. Besides his own statement, the petitioner has led no evidence on this point. As such the finding is against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the point for determination is whether the admission made by the petitioner in Exh. R/2 still entitles him to ask for a charge-sheet and. a regular inquiry. On this point, a reference is made to 1970 PLC 576 wherein in the domestic inquiry alongwith show-cause notice, a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was not sent to the workman. The workman was ordered to be re-instated and removal of defects in the inquiry ordered but the past wages were not allowed. In the cited case, I find that it was held by the Labour Appellate Tribunal that since a practice of giving a second show-cause notice to the Road Transport Corporation Employees prevailed before the promulgation of the Standing Orders Ordinance, as such it would from a condition of the employment and must be complied with. In the instant case, there is no such prevailing practice and in my opinion when a workman admits the liability in writing, it would be unnecessary to hold an inquiry. Moreover in the cited case an inquiry was held but since the inquiry report that was kite basis of the order of dismissal had not been communicated to the workman, therefore, the matter was re-opened but in the instant case, there is no inquiry at all because the petitioner accepted the liability vide Exh. R/2 which document- he has not denied having executed though according to him, it was under coercion, which I have found that the petitioner has not been able to prove.
8. There is another aspect of the matter, which requires determinations that the petitioner, on his own showing, was arrested on 20 -12-1968 and was released on bail on 15-3-1969. The petitioner remained absent from duty on account of his arrest for about 2 -- months. No leave had been applied for this period, and even otherwise, under Standing Order 15, sub- clause 3(c), absence 4`ithout leave for more than 10 days is treated as misconduct. The petitioner was released on bail on 15-3-1969. All that the petitioner did was to report for duty on 17-3-1969 but there is nothing on the record to show that he applied for leave, for the period he remained in jail, neither anything has been asserted by him during the trial in his statement. However, keeping in view the document, Exh.
9. R/2, I am of the opinion that it was not necessary for the Management to hold an inquiry after the, admission Made by the petitioner. This petition thus fails and, is dimissed.