Abdul Majid, respondent, was employed by Punjab Road Transport Board as a Bus Driver on 15th January, 1975. Subsequently, he was elected as Vice-President of the Collective Bargaining Agent Union of the appellant Board. There is another rival union of the Board. This rival union made a complaint (Exh. R-2) to the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Railway Road, Faisalabad against certain bus drivers, including Abdul Majid, respondent belonging to the other union, alleging therein that their driving licences were bogus and there was no valid endorsement of 'Public Service Vehicle' (P. S. V.) on them. On the same day the District Manager of the appellant Board took a prompt action on the said complaint and wrote a letter (Exh. R-3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad for the verification of driving licences of the drivers mentioned in the abovesaid complaint. The Motor Licencing Officer, Faisalabad gave the following note or report on the said letter of the District Manager : "Returned in original with the remarks that the above-mentioned persons have applied for and their finger prints have already been got for verification of Finger Print Bureau. The above- mentioned persons are not authorised to drive the bus."
It seems that a copy of the above-mentioned letter of the District Manager addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Exh. R-3) was also sent to the Special Magistrate, Punjab Road Transport Board, Faisalabad. The said Special Magistrate on 29th June, 1978 addressed the following letter (Exh. R-Z) to the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Railway Road, Faisalabad :- "I am in receipt of a letter No, I. N. 1530 dated 17th June, 1978 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad by you asking for a report of verification of the driving licences of 5 drivers named asunder :- {{TABLE TEXT}} S. No, Name & Token No, Father's name Home Licence No, address Shaukat Ali, Instructor. Taj Din Old Central 1802/LR Jail No, 3 Dijkot Road, Faisalabad.
Abdur Rashid, D-167 Ali Sher. Vill & P. O. 69888/ Khurrianwala LHR Teh. & Distt : Sheikhupura.
Abdul Majid, D-113. Inayat Ali Chak No, 215/RB 36007/ Natheri, P.
0. Chak LHR No,215/RB Kakuana Teh : & Distt Faisalabad.
Muhammad Yaqub, D-218. Taj Din House No, 1170. 2609/ `13' Type Colony, LHR Faisalabad.
Khadim Hussain, D-54 Inayat Ali Vill : & P.
0. 16720/ Chak No, 88/N.B. LHR Teh : & District Sargodha. {{TABLE TEXT}} ' According to the report of the Motor Licensing Office, Faislabad, the above-mentioned 5 drivers have applied for endorsement of P.S.V. On their licences. Their fingerprints according to this report have been filed as genuinely put by them on their application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. Except Shaukat Ali son of Taj Din the cases of the remaining 4 drivers are already pending enquiry in my Court.
' The application for endorsement of P. S. V. By these drivers is a self-explained confession of the allegation against them that they are not eligible to drive the "Public Service Vehicle" since they do not have the proper Government sanction to do so. The Report of the Motor Licensing Officer, Faisalabad is sufficient to prove that they manoeuvred their employment in the G. T. S. Through their fraudulent means and misstatement. I hold that in view of this petition by Abdul Rashid D-167, Abdul Majid D-113, Muhammad Yaqub D-218 and Khadim Hussain D-54 for endorsement of their licences as P. S. V. Leaves no doubt left for these drivers that they are not eligible to drive the buses belonging to the Government Transport Service and if they have been doing so, it was irregular.
They are liable for necessary action under the rules. This report alongwith their files pending for enquiry in my Court are returned herewith for necessary action."
2. On the receipt of the above letter from the Special Magistrate the District Manager issued the following office Order (Exh. P-5) No, 888 dated 8th August, 1978 terminating the services of Abdul Majid, respondent :- "Mr. Abdul Majid at the time of his appointment in this department as driver D-113 had produced his driving Licence No, 36007/LHR which was reported to be fake one. In this connection an enquiry was held by special Magistrate P. R. T. B. Faisalabad, wherein it has been proved that driving licence of above driver is fake one and he is not eligible to drive public Vehicle. His services are therefore terminated w,e,f, 8th August, 1978 (A. N.). He shall be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice as required under the rules.
' His dues will be cleared on production of clearance certificate."
3. The respondent, after serving a grievance notice upon the appellant filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 16th April, 1979, before Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad. The learned Presiding Officer vide impugned , order dated 26th November, 1978 accepted the petition and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has challenged the impugned order in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Presiding Officer has erroneously held that the respondent should have been charge-sheeted and proper enquiry should have been held against him before the termination of his service. According to him, the services of the respondent have been terminated under clause (3) of Standing Order No, 12 of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for which no charge-sheet or enquiry is necessary as it was a termination simplicitor and not a dismissal or removal. On the other hand, according to Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz, the learnea representative of ,, the respondent, the case does not fall under Standing Order No, 12 (3) , as specific allegation was made against the respondent. It is not denied 14 that clause (3) of Standing Order No, 12 applies in cases where no allegation is made against the employee for his termination. Let us see whether in the instant case any allegation was made against the respondent for terminating his services or the termination is simplicitor. As mentioned above the present litigation started with the complaint filed by G. T. S. Mazdoor Union No, 207 (Exh. R-2). In this complaint the very first sentence reads as under :-{{URDU TEXT}} ' On the basis of this complaint the District Manager on 17th June, 1973 wrote a letter Exb. R-3 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and on the receipt of the report of the Motor Licensing Officer dated 18th June, 1978, the Special Magistrate, Punjab Road Transport Board, Faisalabad wrote letter No, S. M. 297, dated 29th June, 1978 to the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Faisalabad. The last paragraph of this letter is reproduced below :- "The application for endorsement of P. S. V. By these drivers is a self-explained confession of the allegation against them, that they are not eligible to drive the 'Public Service Vehicle' since they do not have the proper Government sanction to do so. The report of the Motor Licensing Officer, Faisalabad is sufficient to prove they manoeuvred their employment in the G. T. S. Through their fraudulent means and misstatement. I hold that in view of this petition by Abdul Rashid D-167, Abdul Majid D-113, Mohammad Yaqoob D-218 and Khadim Hussain D-54 for endorsement of their licence as P. S. V. Leaves no doubt left for these drivers that they are not eligible to drive the buses belonging to the Government Transport Service and if they have been doing so, it was irregular.
They are liable for necessary action under the rules. This report alongwith their files pending for enquiry in my Court are returned herewith for necessary action."
' A perusal of the above para clearly shows that the allegation against the respondent and other 4 drivers was that they manoeuvred their employment in the Government Transport Service through their fraudulent means and misstatement. It was on the basis of this letter or report that the District Manager passed the impugned termination order, in which it is alleged that the respondent at the time of hi appointment secured employment on the basis of a fake driving licence. Thus, starting with the complaint of G. T. S. Mazdoor Union No, 207; Railway Road, Faisalabad upto the termination order there is a specific allegation against the respondent that he manoeuvred to secure employment by producing a fake driving licence. In these circumstances, the case would not fall under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 but would be covered by Standing Order No, 15 (3) (b) of the said Ordinance and would clearly amount to 'misconduct'. In this view of the matter, a charge- sheet and enquiry against the respondent was necessary before terminating his services. In the absence of such enquiry, the impugned termination order has been rightly set aside by the Labour Court. Reliance in this behalf can be placed upon Glaxo Laboratory's case reported as PLD 1962 SC 60.
5. It is not denied that the driving licence of the respondent was genuine and not a fake one as alleged by the rival union as well as the District Manager in the impugned termination order. It is an admitted fact that subsequently the endorsement of P. S. V. Was made by the competent authority on the licence of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that any independent inquiry was held by the Special Magistrate, Punjab Road Transport Board, Faisalabad. He issued no notice whatever to the respondent and did not consider any other material or circumstance, except the report of the Licening Officer, Faisalabad. In the circumstances, it was not proper for the District Manager to pass his termination order on the said so-called enquiry by the Special Magistrate.
' For the foregoing reasons, 1 find no substance in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.