The decision dated 26-3-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4 Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations made against the respondent were that he had on 8-3-1983 intercepted the workers and instigated them to go on illegal strike, that he used objectionable words against the management. No fault has been found by the learned lower Court in the inquiry proceedings and has directed the re-instatement of the respondent on the grounds that although an industrial dispute was pending and the respondent was an office-holder of the union, yet no permission was taken before dismissing him, that the charge-sheet was vague and that the date of commission of the alleged misconduct was wrongly given in the charge-sheet. The learned lower Court has wrongly held that taking of permission from the Labour Court was necessary. If an industrial dispute is pending before the Labour Court only then permission is to be taken from it. The learned lower Court has observed that industrial dispute was pending before the conciliator. If it was so, then permission was to be taken from the conciliator. Dispute before the conciliator starts when strike notice is received by him. No evidence can be found on the record that strike notice was sent to the conciliator and that the same was received by him before the dismissal order was passed.
Strike notice was given to the appellant and there is no note on it that copy was Sent to the conciliator. The finding of the learned lower Court on the point, therefore, is wrong. However, the evidence produced during inquiry is not germane to the charges. The allegation is that the respondent collected the workers and instigated them to go on strike but the prosecution witnesses stated with one voice that Ehsan-ul-Haq was abusing the union, that the respondent reached there and asked the former not to abuse the union but to accompany him to the director so that he be held from the collar and beaten. Indiscipline had already been caused by Ehsan-ul- Haq. The witness did not say that the respondent collected the workers and instigated them to go on strike. So, such an allegation does not stand established. So far as using objectionable words against the management is concerned, the allegation is vague. Actual words said to be objectionable were not reproduced in the charge-sheet. No allegation can be found in the charge- sheet that the respondent asked Ehsan-ul-Haq and the workers to accompany him to the director for holding his collar and giving him a beating in order to compel him to grant bonus etc. The respondent was, therefore, prejudiced by the vagueness of the charge-sheet. In these circumstances the order of dismissal was not sustainable and was rightly struck down by the learned lower Court although the grounds given are wrong.
3. However, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits, as he did not assert that he after having been dismissed, remained jobless. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.
A . E.