' This Constitutional Petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 7th May, 1975 of the Junior Labour Court, Karachi, (respondent No, 2) and dated 8th May, 1976 of Sind Labour Court, Karachi (respondent No, 3). Quresh Khan son of Sher Afzal Khan, respondent No, 1, an employee of the petitioner, had been dismissed from service by the petitioner. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, dated 29th March, 1975 for setting aside the dismissal order and for his re-instatement in service with full back benefits. This application was allowed by the Junior Labour Court and the petitioner was directed to re-instate respondent No, 1 in service with full back benefits. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sind Labour Court against the order of the Junior Labour Court and this came to be dismissed by order dated 8th May, 1976 of the Sind Labour Court. Hence this petition.
' No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Respondent No, I was served, through publication, as he could not be served in the normal course. However, he has not appeared and defended these proceedings.
2. Respondent No, 1 was employed at the Hussain Textile Mills project of the petitioner at Landhi, Karachi, as a workman under a letter of appointment dated 19th August, 1971 issued by the Assistant Labour Officer of the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that respondent No, 1 had a quarrel with another employee, who was injured by respondent No, 1 and as this action on the part of respondent No, 1 together with other circumstances connected with this quarrel constituted an act of misconduct and indiscipline, a charge-sheet dated 6th November, 1974 signed on behalf of the Manager of the petitioner by the Assistant Labour Officer was issued in reply whereof respondent No, 1 submitted his explanation in writing. One Qureshi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the petitioner-Company and it is an admitted position that respondent No, 1 participated in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. After the enquiry officer submitted his report, a second show- cause notice was issued to the respondent No,
1. However, respondent No, 1 complained to the petitioner against the partiality of the enquiry officer and on this a fresh enquiry was ordered by the management and one Shaukat Ali was appointed as the enquiry officer. It is admitted by respondent No, 1 in his cross-examination before the Junior Labour Court that he appeared before the second enquiry officer on several dates and participated in the enquiry proceedings and that statements of persons in the said domestic enquiry were recorded in his presence and he cross- examined them. On the basis of the report of the second enquiry officer, a second show-cause notice dated 30th January, 1975 was issued by the General Manager of the petitioner-Company to the respondent No, 1 intimating that the said second enquiry officer had submitted his report and had found him guilty of the commission of the act of misconduct, alleged against him in the charge-sheet and requiring him to be present on 4th February, 1975 for personal hearing and also to show .Cause in writing why he should not be dismissed from service. This second show-cause notice was received by respondent No, 1 and this is evidenced by the fact that his signature appears on the copy of the show-cause notice dated 30th January, 1975. By his notice dated 3rd March, 1975 addressed to the Manager of the petitioner respondent No, 1 alleged that a baseless charge-sheet was given and a partial enquiry was made and on 30th January, 1975 a second show-cause notice was issued to him and that thereafter continuously and illegally petitioner had been suspending him and from 13th February, 1975, without suspending him, petitioner have not been permitting him to come on duty to the Mills and also illegally and without any written order petitioner have removed him from service. Petitioner was requested to re-instate respondent No, 1.
Thereafter, application under section 25-A of the 1969 Ordinance dated 29-3-1975- was filed by the respondent No, I before the Junior Labour Court. In his application dated 29th March, 1975, respondent No, 1 referred to the two enquiries and the issuance of show-cause notices and then stated that he was illegally gate stopped after 31st January, 1975, although the enquiry officer had submitted a report, which did not make respondent No, 1 liable for dismissal but for a lenient punishment. It is further alleged that thereafter respondent No, 1 was asked by manager of petitioner to resign or otherwise he would again order for a fresh enquiry and as he did not agree, a fresh enquiry was ordered but the report of the second enquiry officer was not supplied to respondent No, 1 and he was dismissed. He alleged violation of principles of natural justice and mala fides on the part of the management. Evidence was recorded by the Junior Labour Court and he allowed the application under section 25-A of the 1969 Ordinance on the following grounds
(a) That H. Yamin who filed a reply statement on behalf of the petitioner before the Junior Labour Court, had no authority to sign the reply statement.
(b) Charge-sheet and suspension letters were signed by an office assistant.
(c) Second letter of enquiry was signed by one A. Razzaq, who was not a manager under the Factories Act. .
(d) Under section 2 (c) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, only the Manager was competent to issue charge-sheet.
' Junior Labour Court held that all the proceedings of the domestic enquiry were not in accordance with law. No decision was given on merits.
' In the appellate order, the Sind Labour Court confirmed the order of the Junior Labour Court on the grounds mentioned in the order of the Junior Labour Court and further held that the copy of the second enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent No, 1.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No,
1. As observed earlier, respondent No, 1 was served through publication but he has not appeared and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, though served, have not defended these proceedings. As regards the grounds on which the application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 of respondent No, 1 was granted by the Junior Labour Court, it was contended by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed that none of these grounds was taken in the application filed under section 25-A of the I.
R. 0,, 1969. A perusal of the application dated 29th March, 1975 of respondent No, 1 under section 25- A of I.R.O., 1969, shows that this is correct. It was not the case of respondent No, 1 before the Junior labour Court in his application under Section 25-A that charge-sheet and suspension letters were not issued by a competent person or that the second letter of enquiry was signed by a person not authorised to sign the same. The fact that enquiry proceedings were taken at the instance and direction of the management of the petitioner, cannot be denied. Further the dismissal order had been signed by the General Manager of the petitioner-Company. Section 2 (c) of The West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, defines the term "employer" to mean the owner of an industrial or commercial establishment and this includes `in a factory, any person named in clause
(c) of subsection (1) of section 9 of the Factories Act, 1934, as manager of the factory." The contention of Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed that the show-cause notice and the suspen sion letters must be signed by the manager himiself is not necessary uncle' the law, is correct. Any person authorised by the manager can issue a charge-sheet or suspension letters and merely for the reason that charge-sheet or suspension letters have not been signed by the manager could not invalidate the proceedings, if the proceedings, in a given case have been initiated at the instance of the management and have their approval. The conclusions of the Junior Labour Court as well as labour Court that law requires that the charge-sheet and suspension letters must be signed by the manager of the factory are, therefore, not correct. In the instant case, as observed earlier, it has not been the case of the respondent No, 1 nor has it been established in the evidence that the charge- sheet, the suspension letters and the proceedings did not have the sanction or approval of the management. On the contrary, the dismissal order signed by the General Manager shows that the proceedings as well as the issuance of the charge sheet and suspension letters had the approval and sanction of the management and that the same were issued at their instance. It may also be A observed here that the Junior Labour Court as well as Labour Court had assumed that the charge-sheet and suspension letters were signed by an office assistant. Evidence on record is to the contrary. Evidence of the Labour Officer of the petitioner before the Junior Labour Court shows that the charge-sheet and suspension letters were signed by the Assistant Manager (Administration) of the petitioner. In my view, it was not established that the charge-sheet and the suspension letters had been issued by an unauthorised person or by a person, who was not authorised by law to issue the same.
' As regards non-supply of the second enquiry report to the respondent, the evidence is that no request was made by respondent No, 1 in writing to the petitioner for supply of the same. According to the Labour Officer of the petitioner, no request at all was made by respondent No, I, for a copy of the second enquiry report. Respondent No, I in his evidence has admitted that he did not apply in writing for such report but stated that he had orally asked for the same. In the grievance notice dated 3rd March, 1975 also no allegation has been made that enquiry report was not supplied to him. In the circumstances, it can be safely concluded that responder No, 1 had not asked for supply of a copy of the second enquiry.
' As regards the legal position, with reference to the supply of the enquiry report, it may be observed that in case the employee, against whom, the enquiry was held, requests or asks for a copy o the enquiry report, the same has to be supplied. If the employed does not ask for a copy of the enquiry report, then in that case it is not necessary for the management to supply a copy of the enquiry report if the result of the enquiry is duly communicated to the employee. Mr. Muhammad All Sayeed, learned counsel for the petitioner, had referred to the case of Muhammad Shamim v.
Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd.and this judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan enunciates the legal position observed earlier. In this judgment, Supreme Court observed as follows :- "In this case, a show-cause notice was given in writing. The result of the enquiry report was also communicated to him. It is admitted that the petitioner did not ask respondent to supply a copy of the enquiry report. In such circumstances, the petitioner can have no legitimate grievance in that respect."
In the instant case the evidence establishes that respondent No, I did not ask for a copy of the second inquiry report and that the result of the second inquiry was duly communicated to him through the second show-cause notice. In view of the law in this regard enunciated in 1975 SCMR 46, the fact that in his grievance notice, respondent No, 1 had not made any grievance about the non-supply of the second inquiry report, and the fact that on merits, no grievance or complaint has been made as regard the inquiry proceedings against respondent No, 1, I am of the opinion that neither any illegality was committed in the holding of the inquiry proceedings nor the principles of natural justice have been violated.
4. As a result, it is declared that the order dated 7th May, 1975 passed by the Second Junior Labour Court and the order dated 8th April 1976 passed by the IV Sind Labour Court have been made without lawful authority and the same are of no legal effect. There will be no order as to Costs. 1975 SCMR 46