This appeal arises from the decision dated 7-9-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has lodged cross-objections, which are being decided along--with the appeal.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he on 17-6-1979 alongwith four other workers surrounded (ghaxoed) Mr. Sikander Khan. Assistant Manager Shipping and did not perform their duties from 8-30 a.m. To 10-00 a.m. The respondent had about a month before the incident given an application for his promotion on which no action had been taken and in that connection the respondent and his companions had gone to Mr. Sikandar Khan and insisted that the application be decided.
3. The learned lower Court has directed the re-instatement of the respondent only on the ground that the charge-sheet was issued not by the authority who ultimately imposed the penalty and thus the charge-sheet was incompetent. While deciding the appeals of the PECO preferred against the companions of the respondent 1 held that show-cause notice can be issued by any officer who comes within the definition of `employer', and has some kind of control over the worker concerned.
The appeals were accepted and the dismissal orders were restored. The case of the respondent was decided by the learned lower Court separately, therefore, this appeal could not be decided alongwith those appeals. The companions of the respondent had gone in writ petitions and the High Court agreed with ma on the point that it is not necessary that the appointing authority should give first show-cause notice, rather any officer who falls within the definition of `employer' can charge-sheet a workman. Contrary view cannot be taken in this appeal which emanates from the same case: Needless to say that Manager Administration is not a stranger to an Assistant Shipping Depart--ment and has administrative control over him. It has not been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Manager Administration is not covered by the definition of `employer' given in section 2 (viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. A Manager comes within the definition. The Manager Administration was, therefore, quite competent to issue first show-cause notice to the respondent and the learned lower court erred in holding that the charge-sheet issued by the said authority was without authority. Issuing of show-cause notice is that as important as ordering the holding of enquiry. Before deciding whether the enquiry in the allegation be made, the authority has to consider the charges, the reply submitted by the worker concerned and has to apply his mind to decide whether the matter is likely to end in conviction. So this is not necessary that first show-cause notice should necessarily be issued by an authority which is competent to impose the final penalty.
4. As a result of the observations trade above. I accept the` appeal met aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, restore the order of dismissal and dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent. As the dismissal order has been restored, 'no question of back benefits arises. Learned counsel for the respondent has not shown in arguments that the allegation of misconduct was not proved during the enquiry. The cross-objections are, therefore, dismissed.