1. DECISION ' This application has been brought by Haji Jalat Khan, purporting under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (Ordinance No, XXIII Of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) for his re-instatement and for payment of back wages, against Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sibi, on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent has Illegally dismissed the applicant from the performance of his duties.
2. ' The circumstances giving rise to the application are as follows : ' The applicant had been brought on regular cadre by the irrigation Department in the year 1972-73 as plumber. The respondent vide order No, 6-E/1681-85 dated 9-7-78 suspended the applicant with immediate effect on account of negligence in the performance of his duties as plumber.
3. Whereafter vide Order No, 6-E/2865-70 dated 30th December 1978, passed by the respondent the applicant had been re-instated and reverted from the post of plumber to valveman. It is further alleged that thereafter on account of absence the applicant was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved the applicant on 10-4-80 filed the present application before this Court purporting under section 25-A of the Ordinance.
4. ' The application was hotly contested by the respondent who averred in his reply statement dated 10-5-1980, inter alia that the applicant had been deputed in the month of July 1978, at Kadi Kach Dam to fix the syphon and had been told strictly to remain at the site but he illegally and unlawfully left the site without awaiting further orders in this regard. Whereupon vide order dated 9-7-1978, he had been suspended. The applicant also served with show-cause notice No, 1701 dated 10-7-1978. A report in this connection was also invited from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Harnai who submitted the same vide his No, C-2/1-A dated 30-7-1978. The applicant was further ordered by the respondent vide his No, 2185-86 dated 4-10-1978 to submit his explanation. The respondent on 30-12-1976, issued office order whereby the applicant was re-instated and reverted from the post of plumber to valveman. Thereafter Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation Sub-Divisions, Harnai and the Sub-Engineer, Harnai reported that the Applicant has since joined his duties but he has refused to receive his back wages. In this behalf the respondent relied upon the letter No, 998- 99 dated 19-7-1979 addressed by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the applicant, The applicant absented himself from the performance of his duties w. e. f. 6-6-1979, as is evident from the letter No, 0-3/48 dated 16th June 1979, addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Harnai by Sub-Engineer, since relied upon by the respondent. The respondent has placed on record attested copy of the letter No, 6-E dated 12-12-1979 addressed to the Director Public Relations, Government of Baluchistan, Quetta, which reads as under :- "Subject : Advertisement Six copies of the Notice in the name of Haji Jalat Khan, valveman Harnai Sub-Division Ziarat of this office are sent herewith for publication in Urdu local newspapers preferably "Daily Jang" and "Mashriq" Quetta at earliest."
5. ' Consequently vide Order No, 6-E/4014/17 dated 12th December 1979, issued by the respondent the applicant is dismissed from service.
6. ' The parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence for and against the application. The applicant examined (1) Haji Shein Gul, (2) Fateh Khan, and (3) himself. The respondent examined himself, and one Saifullah, valveman.
7. ' The points for determination in this case are (1) whether domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and principles of natural justice ; (2) whether the applicant has been reverted/dismissed in accordance with provisions of law.
8. ' As regards the first point, it has not been established by the respondent that the same was ever held. It has been held by his Lordship Justice Zakaullah Lodhi in case entitled Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, IV Sind Labour Court, Karachi and the relevant part at page 431 reads as under :- "The question whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice could be taken into consideration by the Junior Labour Court as well as Labour Court and while doing so they were perfectly within their jurisdiction."
9. ' It is mandatory upon the employer to observe proper and legal procedure in case of dismissal of an employee. The procedure prescribed is:-
(1) Written notice of alleged misconduct is to be given.
(ii) An opportunity to the workman to explain the charges against him is to be given.
(iii) The employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against the workman.
(iv) Approval of the employer is taken in every case of dismissal.
10. ' Where this procedure is not adopted it will be bad in law and will amount to a contravention of the provision of Ordinance.
11. In the present case the respondent neither did hold any inquiry nor appoint any enquiry officer. No evidence was led in support of the charge-sheet levelled against the applicant whereas not to mention of cross-examination of the witness/witnesses deposing against him, if any. Workman should be furnished with copy of inquiry report and also given opportunity to show-cause against the order of dismissal.
12. ' Moreover, it has been held in case entitled Ahmad Hadi Shah v. Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. that second show-cause notice is necessary after conclusion of domestic enquiry and before imposition of penalty ; which again has not been done in the present case so far as the record of the case does reveal.1 2 As such the orders dated 30-12-1978 and 12-12-1979 since issued by the respondent whereby the applicant was reverted and dismissed respectively are held to be bad in law, consequently set aside ; and the applicant is ordered to be re-instated.
13. ' As regards the second point for determination, the aforesaid discussion does reveal that the applicant has been reverted/dismissed not in accordance with the provisions of law.
14. ' Section 25-A of the Ordinance states :- "In adjudicating and determining a grievance under subsection (4), the Labour Court shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
15. In view of the facts of the case it is hereby ordered that the respondent. If on fresh inquiry the applicant is found guilty of misconduct, he will not be entitled to back benefits. If he is found not-) guilty, he will be so entitled. The proceedings to be completed within three months. With these observations the application is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. 1976 PLC 429 1976 PLC 444