' This constitutional petition calls in question the validity of the order dated 2nd February, 1982 of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained the order dated 22nd December, 1981 of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore directing respondent No, l's re-instatement in service with back benefits.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 24th November, 1977, the workers of Rustam-Sohrab Cycle Factory, Shandara, Lahore, went on strike on account of refusal of the management to observe 24th November, 1977 as holiday. Respondent No, 1 having taken part in the strike was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and five lashes by Martial Law Authorities. During his detention in jail, he was served with Charge-Sheet dated 23rd November, 1977 issued by the petitioner-management. He submitted his reply but the management vide order dated 16th January, 1978 terminated his services on the ground that he had been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for which period tfie job could not be left vacant. He was released from jail on 21st March, 1978 and reported for duty on 23rd March, 1978 but the petitioner did not allow him to join service. The respondent then challenged the order of his termination of service by means of petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The application was allowed on 1st March, 1979 by Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, and he was re-instated is service. The petitioner assailed the aforementioned order in Writ Petition No, 1394/79, which was accepted by this Court on 31st March, 1981 and disposed of with observations which relevant to the extent are reproduced hereunder :- "9. I think there is merit in the contention of the petitioner society. The letters of termination of employment issued by the management to the respondents clearly stated that their services were being dispensed with on the ground that their posts could not be kept vacant for such a long and indefinite period while they were serving the sentences imposed upon them by "the Martial Law Authorities". In these letters there was no allegation of misconduct which could be relatable to their employment under the petitioner society. Quite obviously in dispensing with their services the management was relying upon the provisions of Standing Order 12. This order, as already mentioned, did not require that an inquiry must be held before a workman's contract of employment was determined. In the circumstances it was not open to the Labour Court to set aside the decision of the management merely on the ground that no inquiry had been previously held. Of course the Labour Court was quite competent to examine whether the termination of services of the respondents, even though described as termination simplicities, was in fact motivated by the allegations of misconduct which the management has levelled in the charge- sheets served upon the respondents and whether the exercise of the powers under Standing Order 12 was colourable one and the case of the respondents properly fell under Standing Order 15, but then the Labour Court has not gone into this question at all and has not recorded any finding thereon. In the absence of any such finding the Labour Court was not justified in merely assuming that the provisions of Standing Order 15 were applicable to the case of the respondents.
' For the reasons stated above, I declare the orders of the Labour Court to be without any legal effect. The applications of the petitioners should be treated as still pending and disposed of in accordance with law after first deciding whether the termination of the services of the respondents was properly made under Standing Order 12 or whether it was a colourable exercise of the power under that order and that the case of the respondents in essence fell under Standing Order 15.
There will be no order as to costs in these Writ Petitions."
3. The Punjab Labour Court, vide its order dated 22nd December, 1981, held that the respondent's services were terminated on account of his participation in the strike without holding formal inquiry and ordered his re-instatement in service with back benefits. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned order in appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed in limine vide the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order terminating respondents' services indicated that it was an order of termination of services simpliciter and not for reason of misconduct; therefore, the impugned orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent himself had taken different stands regarding termination of his services; as such, the mere statement of Zaka Ullah (R. W.
1.) to the effect that his services were terminated on account of his participation in the illegal strike was of no legal consequence. It was also submitted that, in any case, the onus for proving that respondent's services were terminated on account of misconduct, was upon him and no benefit could be pressed into service by a statement made by Zaka Ullah (R. W. 1). Learned counsel, however, did not deny that the charge-sheet served upon the respondent while he was detained in jail contained allegations of his participation in illegal strike amounting to misconduct on his part.
5. 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the documents on the file and find that the concurrent finding of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that respondent No, l's services were terminated on account of his participation in the illegal strike amounted to an action taken for his misconduct, are unexceptionable. The charge-sheet dated 30th November, 1977 (Exh. P. 1) addressed to the respondent while he was detained in Camp Jail, Lahore, contained allegation of his misconduct for participating in illegal strike. The statement of Zaka Ullah, General Duty Officer, Rustam-Sohrab Cycle Factory, while he appeared as R. W. 1 before the Labour Court, wherein he admitted that the service of respondent were terminated as he had participated in illegal strike, conforms to the allegations in the charge-sheet. The order, terminatin his services was, therefore, a mere device adopted by the petitioner to avoid holding of domestic inquiry into the allegations against the respondent and, therefore, could not be construed as termination simplicity.
6. In any case, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am neither inclined nor consider it a fit case for the exercise of extra, ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the impugn end orders. There is no merit in this petition and the same stands dismissed in limine.
Writ .