Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No 1 was working as Meter Reader an 1st Stab Division, D 0 Khan under WAPDA when he was served with thirty-one different letter and subsequent show cause notices for submission of explanation. In response thereto, he submitted replies and ultimately, Respondent No 1 was compulsorily retired from service, vide order dated 17,02.2003 Peeling aggrieved, Respondent No 1 filed grievance petition, -which was dismissed by learned Punjab Labour Court vide judgment dated 22.051008. Being dissatisfied, Respondent No, I preferred appeal before learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, Multan, which was allowed vide judgment dated 12.10.2015 Through instant petition, petitioners have assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 12.10.2015, with following prayer: Therefore. it is respectfully prayed that by accepting the instant writ petition, the impugned judgment dated 12 10 2015 passed by learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, Multan may very kindly be set aside by declaring it null and void in the eye of law and the judgment dated 22 05.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan may very kindly be sustained by declaring it in accordance with law It is further prayed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated 12 10.2015 passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II. Multan may very kindly be suspended till the final decision of main writ petition."
Learned counsel for petitioners submits the there is ample evidence available on record, which shows that inquiry, as required under Para 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (Ordinance of 1968), which conducted and personal hearing was afforded Respondent No,
1. He adds that even otherwise grievance petition filed by Respondent No, 1 was barred by time. In the end, he submits that impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 defends impugned judgment and submits that petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which is liable to be upheld under the law.
4... Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. The operative part of impugned judgment dated 12.10.2015 is reproduced hereunder:-- "10. In these circumstances, the observation by the learned trial Court that the previous conduct and history of the appellant if seen he does not deserve any leniency and was rightly declared compulsorily retired is actually non-exercise of power conferred on a Court Tribunal, hence it is not sustainable in the eye of law. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant clearly applicable on the subject, therefore, while allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside.
11. As far as question of reinstatement of the appellant in service is concerned, as impugned termination was way back in 2003 and since then appellant had been pursuing this matter firstly before the learned trial Court and thereafter in his appeal before this Tribunal and as there are different serious allegations levelled against the appellant, therefore, the matter is left open with the respondent-department to proceed against the appellant and hold an inquiry in accordance with law as envisages in Paragraph 15 (4) of (Standing Orders), Ordinance 1968 (amended up to date) and after affording full opportunity of defence, the competent authority may pass an appropriate order in this respect. As far as back benefits are concerned, if after conducting an inquiry the allegations levelled against the appellant are found baseless in that situation the appellant shall be entitled for back benefits. The respondent-department - if chooses to hold an inquiry against the appellant it must be concluded within three months positively with intimation to this Court."
Perusal of above reproduced part of impugned judgment shows that learned Appellate Tribunal has accepted the appeal on the ground that neither any inquiry, as required under Paragraph 15
(4) of the Ordinance of 1968, was conducted nor any personal hearing was afforded to Respondent No,
1. Thus, order for compulsorily retirement of Respondent No, 1 was held to be illegal and without lawful authority. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for petitioners, despite arguments at some length, could not substantiate from record that mandatory regular inquiry was conducted in the matter.
Law on the subject is well-settled that in case of passing order with regard to misconduct workman concerned is informed in writing within one month of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to employer's notice. Dispensation of inquiry would amount to depriving of a person from right of defence and fair opportunity of hearing. In the instant matter, no evidence of misconduct had been brought on record. The matter involving controversial questions of facts cannot be decided without detailed scrutiny and proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This is against the principles of natural justice to draw a conclusion, adverse to the interest of a person, on the basis of disputed facts without recording the evidence and providing him proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to make his defence.
So far as the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that 'grievance petition filed by Respondent No, 1 was barred by time is concerned, suffice it to say that since impugned order for compulsorily retirement of Respondent No, 1 having been passed without holding any inquiry and hearing him, was absolutely illegal, therefore, said order is not sustainable in the eye of law, as rightly held by learned Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this argument of learned counsel for petitioners does not carry any force and the same is hereby repelled.
9. In view of above, this petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.