DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated April 29, 1911, whereby the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was in permanent service of the respondent --Company and, therefore, ho was entitled to one month's wages in lieu of notice.
2. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that the services of the appellant having been terminated on the ground of misconduct an enquiry should have been held before his services were done away with. In other words, the contention of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi is that appellant's case could not be of simple termination of service. The admitted position is that the notice dated 7th April 1970, does contain allegation which amounts to misconduct. The said notice terminating the services of the appellant states that in spite of the warning the appellant was not properly pressing the shirts of the respondent's clients and spoiling them. Mr. Masood Shaikh, the learned Representative for the respondent, candidly admitted that the ground mentioned in the notice would amount to misconduct. But relying on a case of Karnaphully Paper Mills Ltd. v. Karnaphully Mills Workers' Union (1961 PLC 991), he submitted that this being a case of private employment, the ordinary rule of master and servant must be applied. A perusal of the obser--vation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan would make it clear that the principle referred to would be applicable only if no cause was assigned. Where, however, a cause is assigned while terminating the services of an employee and which amounts to misconduct, a show-cause notice would be necessary.
Cornelius, C. J., observed as under :- "--------in the case of private employment the ordinary rule of master and servant must be sustained, namely, that without cause assigned the master may dispense with the services of the servant with notice or on payment of salary in lieu of notice."
3. In this case, no show-cause notice was given to the appellant, nor any enquiry was held. In this connection, reference may be made to section 19 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969. A perusal of the same makes it clear that though in the case of temporary service no notice is necessary while terminating the services, but if his employment is terminated on the ground of misconduct, a show cause notice will be necessary.
4. In the next place, Mr. Shaikh, the learned Representative for the respondent, contended that the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was not maintainable. Mr. Shaikh contended that there is nothing on the record to show that the Collective Bargaining Agent has 75% of its Executive Members from New Way Dry Cleaners. The point raised by Mr. Shaikh as a question of fact. This point was not raised before the learned Labour Court. I cannot therefore allow it to be raised now.
5. I would set aside the award of the learned Labour Court and order that Shamahad be re- instated. He, however, will not be entitled to any back benefits, which will depend upon the result of the enquiry that the Company may hold against the appellant. In case, the enquiry is not held within a month the appellant will be entitled to back benefits. I would not award any cost in this case as in compliance with the award of the Labour Court, the respondents have paid a month's salary to the appellant, which, in case the appellant was held guilty of misconduct, he would not have been entitled to receive.
6. Mr. Shaikh submitted that I should make it clear that the appellant would co-operate in receiving the charge-sheet and attend the hearing that may be fixed for holding the enquiry. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi states that the appellant will co--operate.