' This petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 has been brought against Administrative Officer of Shah Murad Sugar Mills Limited by the applicant herein for his reinstatement in service. Facts giving rise to this petition in nutshell are that the applicant was employed as Cane Inspector in the Shah Murad Sugar Mills Limited. One Faqir Ahmed Palejo was said to have been granted loan by the mill on furnishing surety of four guarantors. However, at the time of making recovery the applicant did not communicate the names of two guarantors Ali Mohammad and Mohammad Arif to the Mill Management with the result that the outstanding loan could not be recovered. The applicant was then charge-sheeted and after recovery he was removed from service on 7th September, 1982.
After sending grievance notice dated 13th October, 1982 and on receipt of Management's reply dated 13th November 1982, the applicant instituted the present petition on 13th December, 1982.
2. In the reply statement it has been pleaded that the applicant was terminated after affording proper opportunity during the course of enquiry. It has also been pleaded that it was the responsibility of the applicant to prepare list of true guarantors and due to the negligence of the applicant, the management suffered substantial loss. The maintainability of the petition has also been challenged on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction and further that the termination of the applicant was mode by the Management and not the Administrative Officer.
3. The applicant examined himself in support of his petition, while on behalf of the respondent one Liaquat Ali Khan, Administrative Officer was tendered in evidence. After the evidence I have heard Mr. S.F.H. Rizvi, Advocate for the applicant, and Mr. Mohammad Bashir Awan, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. I have also examined the factual as well as legal propositions involved herein.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that this petition is not maintainable in law mainly on two grounds firstly that the applicant was not a workman because he was having a supervisory position, and, secondly, the applicant has not sued the person who had actually terminated him but has come in this court against a person who had nothing to do with the employment of the applicant. Mr. Rizvi. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the termination letter was issued under the signatures of Administrative Officer and so he was rightly sued. Moreover, even otherwise this Administrative Officer is an important organ of the management and so no illegality has been committed by the applicant. As to the other ground, Mr. Rizvi urged that the applicant was not having any supervisory duties and he himself used to do clerical and manual work and so he is a workman.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the legal proposition pressed before me. This application has been brought against Administrative Officer. In paragraph 10 as well it has been pleaded that the impugned order of Administrative Officer was illegal, void ab inito. The grievance notice was also addressed to this Administrative Officer specifically warning him in the end of the said notice that if he was not reinstated, he would file petition against him. During the course of proceedings this serious mistake was perhaps considered fatal by the applicant and so an application for amendment Of his petition was filed on 5th September, 1983. By this application amendment 'was sought to the effect that the term "Administrative Officer" be deleted and "through their Manager" be added to the title. This application was however subsequently dismissed because it was not pressed by the Advocate for the applicant. In this way, the only party which has been sued by the applicant remained Administrative Officer and so I have to see whether this person is a necessary or proper part and whether any relief can be granted against him.
6. As pointed out above, the applicant has sought a relief that the order passed by Administrative Officer be set aside and he be directed to reinstate him. The termination order (A/1) dated 7th September, 1982 shows that though it has been issued by the Administrative Officer but its paragraph No, 2 specifically states that the termination of the applicant was decided and ordered by the management. In this way, this termination order was simply communicated by the Administrative Officer though he had himself not passed the same. Moreover, the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report brought on record as R/2 and R/3 respectively show that the Administrative Officer had only acted as Enquiry Officer and so held the enquiry against him. After completing the said enquiry this Administrative Officer only submitted his recommendations to the General Manager of the Mill and which General Manager had issued the charge-sheet sheet etc. A person who has nothing to do with the appointment or termination of an employee, can never be a necessary or proper party and if a relief is sought against such an incompetent person, the same cannot be allowed. It is a settled law that the relief can be sought on against such person who is competent and authorised to grant such relief o implement the directions of the Court. As discussed above, in the instant case the applicant has sued an ncompetent person and sought the setting aside of an order which was never passed by him. Accordingly, this petition would not be maintainable on this score.
7. As to the status of the applicant, I would refer to the evidence of the applicant himself. In his cross-examination the applicant has admitted that four Fieldmen used to work under him.. In his statement before the Enquiry Officer and which has not been denied anywhere by the applicant, he has stated that he was not maintaining Guarantors Register in the sector and he used to depute his Fieldman to prepare the same. This shows that the applicant used to supervise the work of at least four Fieldmen and he himself did not perform any clerical or manual work. Accordingly, the applicant cannot come within the definition of a workman. Moreover, the applicant has nowhere pleaded himself as a workman or amenable to the provisions of Labour Laws either in his petition before this Court or the grievance notices sent to the respondent and so in view of the objections of the other side, it was for the applicant to have led some positive evidence to show that he comes within the category of a workman. The submission of Mr. Rizvi that the charge- B sheet and the enquiry proceedings were made under the provisions of S.O. Ordinance and so the applicant was deemed to be a workman. Would also be of no avail for the simple reason that if any law is inadvertently made applicable, the other side cannot claim benefit under it. Accordingly, the present petition would also be incompetent because the applicant is not a workman.
8. Reverting to the merits of this case, I would mention here that the charge was admitted by the applicant in reply to the charge-sheet as also in the statements made by him before the Enquiry Officer and whit has not been denied in this Court. In view of this categorical admission, the defects if any in the enquiry would be immaterial. It is mentioned herein that if an employee commits any fault which may cause' loss to the management, it is for the management to take any action it may deed fit in the circumstances of a particular case and the court cannot force the employer to behave in any other manner. Accordingly, on merits a well the applicant has no case.
9. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.