1. ' This is an application under section 25-A of I.R.O. , 1969 filed by the applicant against the respondent, the Pioneer Insurance Company for his re-instatement with back benefits.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the applicant was employed as a Dispatcher-cum-typist in their Head Office at Qamar House since October, 1981. It is said that there arose some dispute between the respondent and the labour union over demands hence respondent became hostile towards the union. On 27-12-1982 the applicant was given two charge-sheets to be served on two main officers and three active members of the union. The applicant, it is said, had called the concerned and offered the charge-sheets to them but they put it off on the pretext that they would talk to the management and then receive the letters. This annoyed the Manager (Admn.) of the respondent who came to the seat of the applicant and scolded him and immediately issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on this date i.e. 27-12-1982 on a number of false and baseless allegations and attributing disobedience to him. The applicant was given 24 hours time to reply to this charge- sheet. By the time he could reply this charge-sheet another charge-sheet was issued to the applicant on the following day i.e. 28-12-1982 again for disobedience, repeating the incident, again asking for reply within 24 hours. The applicant filed his reply on 30-12-1982. It was on this date that the petitioner came to know at 12.45 afternoon that the enquiry was proceeded by Mr. Yusuf Minai, the Chief Manager. When he approached the said Enquiry Officer he was informed that the enquiry proceeded ex parte at 10.00 a.m. On 2-1-1983, the petitioner was served with an order dismissing him from service.
3. ' Finding, this action of the respondent was mala fide and illegal, the petitioner on 13-1-1983 gave grievance notice to the respondents by Registered Post and finally he has filed this petition on 22- 2-1983 when he did not receive any satisfactory redress of his grievance.
4. ' The respondent filed their reply statement on 2-4-1983, denying the allegations. The respondents have denied any grudge or malice against the union or the petitioner. It is reiterated by the respondent that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct by disobeying the orders of his superiors and defying their orders deliberately hence the respondent was justified in taking this action against the petitioner who chose to remain absent during the enquiry proceedings. The respondents have further reiterated that there is no merit in the petition hence it should be dismissed. The respondents have also taken legal pleas such as, that the application is time- barred and also that it is not maintainable under the I.R.O., 1969. Further that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands and has intended to harass the management by this petition.
5. ' The applicant filed his affidavit-in-evidence on 14-4-1983. On 2-5-1983 the respondents and its counsel were absent hence applicant could not be cross-examined and the side of applicant was closed and the matter posted to 14-5-1983 for evidence of the respondents. But on this date, no appearance was made on behalf of the respondent and hence my learned predecessor had closed the side of the respondent and fixed the matter for arguments. On 16-5-1983 the arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for orders on 28-5-1983. On 25-5-1983 the respondent's counsel filed an application for setting aside the orders of the Court. The matter went on and finally it was on 27-8-1983 when it was ordered to be taken up on payment of cost of Rs.250 which was paid on this date.
6. ' On 14-11-1983 I had given last chance to the respondent for filing its affidavit-in-evidence but this chance was not availed of by the respondent who again remain& absent and did not file any affidavit-in-evidence nor cross-examined the applicant. Finally on 5-2-1984 the side of the respondent was closed and the matter was fixed for arguments.
7. ' On 19-2-1984 I had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have now perused the record. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the affidavit-in-evidence filed by the applicant.
8. ' In the affidavit, the applicant has affirmed all the facts alleged by him in his petition especially the manner in which the respondent has conducted the enquiry. He has affirmed that he was illegally charge-sheeted and the manner in which the enquiry was conducted was unwarranted. It has been contended that since the respondent has chosen to remain absent. There is nothing to show as to how the provisions of I . R . 0 . , 1969 make the petition not maintainable not there is anything to show how the matter is time-barred.
9. ' The burden of proving this issue was on the respondent but since he is absent it seems that the respondent failed to show how the matter is not maintainable under I.R.O. Or any other law. It seems that the presumption in law is that every employee is a workman unless specifically proved contrary by the Employer as held in 1979 PLC 370. Admittedly the applicant was dismissed from service on 2-1-1983 and he served the respondent with grievance notice on 13-1-1983 and finally he filed the present petition on 22-2-1983.
10. Thus it is within time.
11. ' As to the facts it seems that the applicant has been proceeded with in a hot haste which obviously is not the intention of law. It is a basic principles of law that justice is not only to be done but manifested to be done. The man should see that justice is being done to him. It has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that hot haste in cases is fatal to the propriety of the action of dismissal and shows bad conscience on the part of the Employer. Reliance in this regard could be placed on 1967 PLC 675 and 1970 PLC 75 and 599.
12. ' Admittedly, the enquiry proceeded ex parte although there was no hurry. The mala fide intention of the respondent seems apparent and uncontroverted. The word of the applicant is supported by the conduct of the respondent. Even if the applicant had appeared late but it was on the same day. If the respondent was clean in mind the applicant should have been given personal hearing and opportunity to lead defence. Non-compliance of this has been held to be fatal. I am fortified by 1970 PLC 156, 1972 PLC 42 and 353.
13. For the above reasons I am of considered view that the present application is liable to be accepted. I accept the same and set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 2-1-1983 and direct that the applicant be re-instated in service with back benefits within 10 days of the receipt of this order.