DECISION ' I propose to dispose of these three appeals by this single decision, as the facts involved in these appeals are same and connected and emerged from the same impugned order, passed on 26th January, 1985 by the learned Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad.
2. The two appeals filed by the Management are respectively against the reinstatement of Hafiz Abdul Qadir and grant of 50% of back benefits to him. The third appeal is by Hafiz Abdul Qadir praying for the grant of full back benefits.
3. The facts are that Hafiz Abdul Qadir was a Conductor in Sind Road Transport Corporation and the bus was checked by a checking party. The allegation is that the tickets were not issued though the fare was realized by the Conductor. Hence, an enquiry was held. He was dismissed as a result of the enquiry. A grievance petition was filed by the Conductor, Hafiz Abdul Qadir and the Labour Court set aside the termination order in the month of October, 1980. The S. R. T. C. Filed an appeal, but, while maintaining order of the Labour Court, this Tribunal permitted the S. R. T. C. To hold a fresh enquiry, vide its order, dated 23rd February, 1981. The Tribunal further directed to hold an enquiry within three months of the said order and the back benefits would depend upon the result of the fresh enquiry. It was observed by the Tribunal that if the enquiry was not conducted within three months, it would be deemed that the S. R. T. C. Had waived its rights to hold such enquiry and in that event the Conductor would be entitled to full back benefits. The Conductor appeared before S. R. T. C. For duty but he was not absorbed nor any fresh enquiry was conducted. The proceedings under section 51 of the I. R. 0,, 1969, were initiated and in the written statement filed by the S. R. T. C.
On 30th August, 1983, it was divulged that the Conductor had been dismissed from service. Thus, a grievance notice, dated 21st September, 1983, was given and despite its service the Conductor did not receive any reply. Considering this so-called dismissal order as illegal and violative of the provisions of S.
0. 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, the Conductor filed the grievance petition on 13th October, 1983 for his reinstatement with full back benefits.
4. In the reply statement, the S. R. T. C. Admitted the dismissal of the Conductor and pleaded that in fact an enquiry was conducted ex parte on 29th April. 1981 because the Conductor failed to appear before the enquiry officer. The enquiry notice was published in Daily IBRAT' on 17th April, 1981 and the second show-cause notice was also published in the same `Ibrat' on 10th June, 1981 and since the Conductor did not submit any reply, he was dismissed on 15th June, 1981. The S. T. R. C. Challenged the maintainability of the grievance petition on the point of limitation and jurisdiction.
5. The Conductor, Hafiz Abdul Qadir examined himself while on behalf of S. R. T. C., one Niaz Hussain Shah, District Manager, Muhammad Haroon Abbasi, Enquiry Officer and Qamaruddin Qureshi another District Manager were tendered in evidence by filing affidavits,
6. I have heard Mr. Wahid Bux as representative for the Conductor and Mr. Races Mohammad Mushtaq, Advocate, for the S. R. T. C.
7. The contention raised by the learned counsel of the S. R. T. C. Is that the grievance application under section 25-A of the I. R.
0., 1969 is hopelessly time-barred inasmuch as the dismissal was ordered on 15th June, 1981, whereas the said application was presented on 13th October, 1983. Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned representative for the Conductor submits that according to the evidence on record, it is clear that no enquiry was held in the case in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal and secondary the dismissal order was never served on the Conductor. The Conductor came to know the so-called dismissal on 30th August, 1983 from the reply statement filed by the S. R. T. C. In the application. The learned representative urges that under these conditions the grievance petition cannot be barred by limitation.
8. Admittedly, this Tribunal by its order, dated 23rd February, 1981 directed as under "I would give an option to the appellant-Corporation to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law against the respondent and would make the award of back benefits to him dependent upon the holding of such an enquiry. In case the appellant-Corporation does not hold any enquiry against the respondent within 3 months from the date of this order, it would be construed that the appellant-Corporation had waived its right to hold such enquiry and in that case, the respondent would be entitled to full back benefits."
9. The observations of the Tribunal are clear. The phrase holding enquiry would not only mean to start the enquiry but it also include the conclusion of the enquiry with a final result. It is clear that the three months time allowed by the Tribunal expired in this case on 22nd May, 1981 and if the dismissal order was not passed by that time, the same would be of no legal effect. The S. R. T. C.
Took final decision in respect of the proceedings on 15th June, 1981 whereby the Conductor was dismissed. In this way, the Conductor was dismissed beyond the time of three months and thus it was not in time.
10. Mr. Haroon Abbasi is said to have acted as Enquiry Officer. The Conductor has placed much emphasis on a letter purported to have been written by the enquiry officer to the S. R. T. C. On 28th February, 1983. According to this letter the enquiry officer was asked by the Secretary, S. R. T. C. On 19th January, 1983 to intimate the Secretary about the case papers in respect of the enquiry proceedings pertaining to the Conductor, Abdul Qadir. After checking the record, the enquiry officer informed the Secretary that the said papers were not available and the same were not even with the officiating Office Superintendent and that the same were lying with Law Officer. This situation indicates that it must be about that enquiry officer who had previously conducted the enquiry into this case and if it is so, the papers must not have been sent to Mr. Abbasi for fresh enquiry and so obviously he never conducted the fresh enquiry. This letter has clearly been admitted by Mr. Abbasi during cross-examination and'so it is confirmed that such a letter was sent by him to the Secretary on 23rd February, 1983. This raises a clear inference that in fact Mr. Abbasi never came across with the enquiry material prior to February, 1983 and there is substance in the apprehension of the Conductor that no enquiry might have been conducted at least by Mr. Abbasi and the so-called proceedings brought on record were later on fabricated. This situation is amply discussed by the learned Labour Court.
11. Now, the question arises whether dismissal order was actually passed on 15th June, 1981 and the same was ever communicated to the Conductor. The Conductor had denied the receipt of such dismissal order or about the knowledge thereof prior to 30th August, 1983. The deposition of Niaz Hussain Shah is as under :- "I do not know in what manner the applicant was served with dismissal order, dated 15th June, 1981 as it is known to my office. I do not know if this dismissal order was published, in Newspaper.
' Though I cannot say if dismissal order was served on the applicant but it is incorrect that this dismissal order fabricated, forged and manufactured one."
12. Mr. Qamaruddin Qureshi, another District Manager has deposed as under :- "We have postal record to prove issuance and service of dismissal letter on the applicant. It is incorrect that neither letter of dismissal was prepared nor it was signed by me nor it was issued and served on the applicant. It is, however, correct that this dismissal letter was not published in Newspaper."
13. The two quotations respectively of Niaz Hussain Shah and Qamaruddin Qureshi indicate that no publication was made in the Newspaper and that there was no proof of service of dismissal order.
The Labour Court has observed as under :- "Since no proof of service was produced in this Court, there will be no difficulty in concluding that the dismissal letter was never issued what to talk of its service on the applicant. Accordingly in view of the dictum laid down in NLR 1983 T.D. 263 and 467, the applicant was perfectly justified in sending his grievance notice only on coming to know about the alleged dismissal through the reply statement filed by the respondent on 30th June, 1983. Accordingly the grievance petition was also well within time."
14. So far the merits of the case are concerned, the statement of passengers from whom the fare was realized by the Conductor, were not recorded. In this way, the version of the members of checking party was merely hearsay as they had never witnessed the realization of the fare from the ticketless passengers and so their statements would be of no legal value. A reference may be made to 1983 PLC 261 and 1984 PLC 97 and 1098.
15. After discussing the entire case, I would not differ from the impugned order of Labour Court No, VI and maintain his order. Since there is no merit, I would dismiss all these three appeals and maintain the order of the Labour Court.