1. AWARD It was alleged by the petitioner that because of his Union activities, a number of charge-sheets were drawn up against him and eventually on the basis of the last charge-sheet, dated 25th August 11969, he was dismissed without any fault of his own. The petition was resisted on a number of grounds and even the maintainability of the petition was challenged, The petitioner was the only witness on his behalf while the respondents examined Ashfaq Hussain, the Assistant Labour Officer.
2. The charge levelled against the petitioner as made out by the charge-sheet was that though assisted by a Coolie, he could complete only 26 pieces of the strips of copper contacts and file the edges in 36 hours and 30 minutes, indicating that he had resorted to go-slow tactes, which constituted misconduct on his part. The petitioner in his affidavit made out that he had given a detailed explanation on 26th August 1969 vide Annexure B in which he had furnished all particulars of the job carried out during that the. It is noteworthy that he was not cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. There is no evidence also from the side of the respondents as to what could be the normal output of a worker within that period. It is also not the case of any body that there was any ferment or agitation going on in the organization or any concert was involved go-slow as defined in explanation to section 59, I. R. O. Which reads as under: - "In this section go-slow means an organized, deliberate and purposeful slowing down of normal output of work by a baby of workmen acting in a concerted manner, but does not include the slowing down of normal output of work which is due to mechanical defect, break-down of machinery, failure or defect in power supply or in the supply of normal materials and spare parts of machinery."
3. It has been defined in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as follows: - "Go-slow means, an organized deliberate and purposeful slowing down of normal output or work by a body of workers in a concerted manner . . . . . . ."
4. The allegation of go-slow, as the matters stand would be wide of the mark and Mr. A. Majeed, learned Representative for the petitioner maintained that even if it was a case of inefficient, dilatory, careless or wasteful working within the meaning of Clause 1 (2) (d) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the petitioner, could never be visited with dismissal. There is force in the contention. In this view of the matter, the argument of Mr. Masood Mirza, learned Representative of the respondent that the finding of the domestic enquiry was sufficient and could not be disturbed by the Labour Court would be of no avail.
5. The question, however, arises whether the petition which has been filed under section 34 of the I. R.
6. O., 1969 read with the Standing Order 18 (b) would be maintainable. In view of the judgment of the appellate Tribunal in Abbas Ali Shah v. WAPDA, Lahore (1970 PLC 373), a petition under section 34 of the Ordinance could be filed not by an individual workman as in the instant case, but by the Collective Bargaining Agent. However, section 34 of the said Ordinance was amended in October 1970, and the right was extended even to the individual worker. As the petition was pending when the amendment came and as section 34, I. R. O., 1969 being a procedural Law would not create a vested right in favour of any party, the argument cannot prevail. No authorities were, cited from either side but a look at the principles enunciated in Shujauddin v. Husan Ara Begum etc. (PLD 1964 Lah. 292), Choudhry, Safdar Ali v. Malik Ikram Illahi and another (1969 SCMR 166), Abdul Mannani v. Haji Karam Illahi and another (PLD 1971 Quetta 1) and Salamat Ali Jafri v. The Province of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1955 Lah. 548), fortify me in that view otherwise to, the petition would lie under Standing Order 18 as' the representation and the subsequent petition were within the it is also to be noted that the petitioner was not given any personal hearing as enjoined by Standing Order 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petition does not suffer from any solecism and would lie.
7. In the result, I would set aside the order of dismissal and direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all the back benefits and continuity of service.
8. Announced in open Court.