DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court No, 1, dated 20th January, 1977. The learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Zardullah Khan and ordered his reinstatement with all back benefits. The matter was heard in appeal by this Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed on the simple ground that second show-cause notice was not given and hence the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a Constitutional Petition was preferred being C. P. No, D-396/77 where the said petition was allowed but it was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the case of Zardullah Khan on merits. The second show cause notice according to the authority of the Supreme Court in the Dawood Cotton Mills Karachi v. Guftar Shah and others , wherein it was held that second show-cause notice was not the requirement of Law before the award of punishment.
Thus, the High Court remanded the case for deciding the appeal on merits by this Tribunal.
2. The facts involved in the present case are that the respondent Zardullah Khan was an employee or permanent workman in Messrs Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi. On 10th January, 1976 he was served with a charge-sheet for wilful insubordination/disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors under the provisions of Standing Order 15 (3) (a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Zardullah Khan, the workman submitted his reply on the same date through a letter under registered A/D, but the same was not considered and a notice of enquiry was issued on 14th January, 1976, which was delivered to him personally. The workmen was directed to appear before Khabir Ahmad, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 17th January, 1976 at 10.00 a. m. The workman/respondent in this appeal approached the mills but he was not allowed the entry in the mills. He was gate-stopped. He, therefore, sent a protest note on the same date through registered post. Then, on 19th January,1 1976, the second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent through registered A/D. The respondent received the same. He, however, demanded copy of the enquiry report. The said report was not supplied to the respondent and on 23rd January, 1976, his services were terminated under Standing Order 12, instead of dismissal from service. The case of the respondent was that this termination order was not served upon him. On 14th February, 1976, the respondent sent a grievance notice under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, ' but it was rejected. He filed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
3. The appellants have disputed the case of the respondent. Accord-to them the respondent was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself, but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer deliberately and consequently the enquiry proceedings were held ex parte. A second show- cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the respondent who received the same but did not submit his explanation, hence the appellants were left with no other option but to dispense with the services of the respondent. Instead of dismissing, however, the appellants showed leniency by terminating the services of the respondent.
4. The matter was argued by the learned counsel, Mr. M. L. Shahani for the appellants and Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for the respondent.
5. It is necessary to advert to the charge-sheet, which is as under :- "It has been reported against you that on 10th January, 1976, when you came to resume your duty in 'A' shift, you were asked by your superiors to work on machine in section No,
4. You firstly refused to work in section No, 4 and said that you were appointed to work on R. R. Machine only. Then you were brought before the Production Supervisor to explain yourself. You gave the same reply to him also and did not perform your normal duty during complete `A' shift.
' It appears that you have committed wilful insubordination or disobedience to,lawful and reasonable orders of your superiors which amount to gross misconduct under the provisions of section 15 (3) (a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1969 and punishment warranted therein is that of dismissal from service."
6. The charge-sheet corresponds to indictment in English Law and is very much more than a mere form. The charge should be precise in its scope and particular in its details. In the instant case the allegation against the respondent is that he refused to obey the orders of his superiors whose names were not disclosed, why, no body knows ?
7. The respondent pleaded that from the date of his employment he was working on machines in section No, 4 and as such there was no occasion for him to refuse to work on these machines on 10th January, 1976. In such a situation, the charge-sheet should have been more clear and on the face of it the respondent was prejudiced. Further, the respondent has pleaded that he went to the mills on 17th January, 1976 at 10.00 a. m , but he was gate-stopped. He immediately lodged protest on the same day through a letter sent under registered post, Annexure The enquiry was conducted in the absence of the respondent. The hot haste shown by the Enquiry Officer in concluding the proceedings ex parte is indicative of the fact that the appellants were mainly interested in the form of the enquiry rather than the actual enquiry. The respondent was handed over the charge-sheet on 14th January, 1976 in person. He replied also the charge-sheet on the same date. Why he was gate-stopped, it is not explained. The presence of the respondent was proved.
8. Evidently the charge was levelled against the respondent under Standing Order 15 but the punishment was levelled under Standing Order 12 (3). The punishment awarded to the respondent was not prescribed by Standing Order 15. The hot haste shown in the ex parte proceedings indicates that the management was bent on ousting him out. The enquiry held was bad in Law. The punishment was not according to Standing Order 15. His services could not have been terminated under Order 12 (3). The Labour Court has written a beautiful order and has reinstated the respondent. I am in full agreement with the order of the Labour Court, but, since it is an old case as back as since 1977, I am not inclined to award him back benefits in this particular case. I dismiss the appeal as such and maintain the order of the Labour Court with the notification that back benefits are not allowed. PLD 1981 SC 225