' The respondent-Muhammad Shafique S/o Akhtar Ali filed-grievance petition on 03.01.2009 mentioning the facts that he was appointed as Security Guard on 04.04.2004 and had been performing his duties in efficient and diligent manner; that due to the factory's environment he suffered lung infection and he got issued form B-II from the office and got medically checked himself on 29.10.2008 from the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and was advised rest from 30.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 and subsequently 01.11.2008 to 30.11.2008; that he submitted the application for grant of leave accordingly in the factory's office; that further he was advised complete bed rest by the doctor from 01.12.2008 to 21.12.2008; which advised was farther deposited in the office; that on 22.12.2008 when he went to his place of duty, he was stopped by Admin.
Manager to perform his duties and later on he was terminated from the service; that respondent issued grievance notice and subsequently filed instant grievance petition before the learned trial Court.
2. This grievance petition was replied by the appellant department raising five preliminary objections about its maintainability having been filed without any cause of action as allegedly no grievance notice was issued nor respondent fell within the category of worker/workman. On factual side, some evasive denials were put forwarded and raised allegations of negligence in performance of duties by the respondent as well as that he was not an employee of the appellants.
3. Learned trial Court recorded the statement of respondent Muhammad Shafique who submitted his affidavit as Ex.P.1 and got exhibited document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.
16. The appellants got examined Muhammad Yamin Rw-1 who submitted affidavit Ex.R.I and authority letter Ex.R.2. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment dated 24.08.2012 allowed the grievance petition, hence this appeal before this Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case; that necessary party was not impleaded as it was an incorporated company under company law; that the Chief Executive was to be impleaded and company to be sued through Chief Executive, hence prayed that this appeal be allowed while setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the grounds that written reply was evasive and no specific denial was made by the appellant-establishment that learned counsel referred Para 8 of the impugned judgment whereby the learned trial Court considered all these aspects of the case and after recording the evidence from both sides passed the impugned judgment whereby respondent was reinstated with back benefits; that learned counsel referring definition 2(viii)(b)(d) of IRA, 2008 that management is also within the definition of employer, hence prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, of the trial Court minutely.
7. As already mentioned the appellants department only through evasive denial in their written reply tried to avoid their liability for reinstatement of the respondent in service. Under Standing Order 12(3) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 a specific procedure is provided for termination of a worker/workman which is hereby reproduced; ' The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action, in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-A of the Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXII of 1969), and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance.
' Standing Order 15(4) further reads: ' No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer's and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and the employer shall institute independent inquiries before.Dealing with charges against a workman.
' On behalf of the appellant Muhammad Yamin S/o Ghulam Sarwar an Accountant of the company appeared as Rw-1 and in. His cross-examination throughout he admitted all the documents submitted by the respondent as correct and genuine. These documents include Ex.P.4 a certificate of appreciation in favour of the respondent,. Muhammad Shafique appreciating his services in the best interest of the company. Remaining documents Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.8 & Ex.P,9 are the certificates issued by the medical officer testifying his illness and justification for his leave on medical grounds.
Although the appellants raised objection that the respondent was not their employee but Muhammad Yamin Rw-1 in his statement specifically admitted that these documents belongs to appellant's company. No proof whatsoever about negligence in performance of respondent's duty was ever produced either orally or in black and white. It is settled now that in the light of the Standing Order 12(3) read with 15(4) ibid services of an employee cannot be terminated until show-cause notice in writing a is issued and proper inquiry is held as well as affording full opportunity to defend the employee himself. No such procedure was ever adopted nor agitated or proved before the learned trial Court, hence the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court was justify and does not call for interference.
8. As far as the objection raised by the appellant about non-joinder of the necessary party as the respondent impleaded the appellant company through General Manager is concerned it is admitted fact that appellants were being represented through its Chief ' Executive who filed, the written reply and contested all the proceedings in grievance petition before the learned trial Court as well as this Tribunal. It is irovided WO 1. Rule IX, CPC: ' Misjoinder and non joinder. No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the right and interests of the parties actually before it.
' It is further even otherwise U/S 2(viii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 the definition of an employer is provided which reads as under:
(viii) "employer" in relation to an establishment, means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment;
(e) ..........................
(d) in relation to an, establishment run by or on behalf of a local authority, the officer appointed in this behalf, or where no officer is so appointed, the chief executive officer of that authority; ' As the appellants were being represented by the Chief Executive of the appellants-company and no prejudice has shown been caused thus this objection is too technical having no bearing on the merits of these proceedings.
9. Resultantly no merits in this appeal while upholding the judgment dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned trial . Court it is hereby dismissed.