1. ORDBR SARDAR MUHAMMAD AMIR AKBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Rehmat Ali, petitioner, has filed this petition under Standing Order No. 18 read with Standing Order No. 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance of 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) read with section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the I. R. O.) against the order of his dismissal dated 5-4-1971 on the ground of misconduct.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no inquiry as contemp--lated by Standing Order No. 15(4) of the Ordinance was conducted before the order of dismissal was passed.
3. The grievance notice was served in the and the petition was also filed in this Court within the.
4. The petition is resisted on behalf of the respondent on the ground that petition under Standing Order No. 18 read with S. O. 15 is not maintainable read with section 34 of the I. R. O. Moreover, it was contended that the petitioner was dismissed for misconduct after he was properly charge- sheeted.
5. Today when the case came up for hearing, I questioned the learned representative of the respondent if any inquiry was actually held or not on the charges served on the petitioner. The answer is that no inquiry in the presence of the petitioner was conducted but an inquiry behind his back was held. Reliance was placed on a written chit dated 1-4-71 filed by one Muhammad Iqbal wherein he made certain allegations against the petitioner.
6. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, we have held in Petition No. 39/1971 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 in Re: Muhammad Farooq v.
7. Chairman, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, decided on 5-5-1971 that a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is maintainable for a relief which is available under the Ordinance under Standing Order No. 18 provided provisions of the Ordinance have been complied with. In the present case, the grievance procedure as laid down in Standing Order No. 18 has been complied with and the petitioner has also been filed in this Court within the. As such, the petition is maintainable and the preliminary objection on the point is overruled.
8. So far as the effect of not holding the inquiry on the charges of misconduct in the presence of the petitioner is concerned, one has to look into the provisions of S. O. 15 (4) which provide that no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him and when circumstances appear to warrant it, the employer may institute independent inquiries before dealing with the charges against a workman. Since the intention of the provision is that it is the workman who is to explain his conduct, so the logical conclusion is that inquiry should be held in his presence. In this case we have been shown the explanation of the petitioner which he offered against the charges. He has denied the charges in that explanation. It was, therefore, all the more necessary that anyone who alleged facts constituting misconduct against the petitioner should have been examined in the inquiry in his presence or at least after affording an opportunity to him to attend that inquiry. There is nothing on record to show that any such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal in this case. As a matter of fact no inquiry has actually been held in this case as visualised under S. O. 15 (4). The provisions o S. O. 15 (4) are mandatory and the inquiry has got to be held before an order of dismissal is passed after affording an oppor--tunity to the workman to meet the charges ii the inquiry. Failure to do so, renders the order of dismissal illegal. The mandatory nature of S. O. 15 (4) becomes all the more clear when we peruse the provision of S. O. 15 (5) which provides for suspension of a workman for the purpose of holding an inquiry. Since in this case no inquiry has been held as required by law, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained.
9. The result of the above discussions is that we set aside the order of dismissal and order the re- instatement of the petitioner with wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of hint re- instatement. The respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner within 15 days of the passing of this order.
10. It shall, however, be open to the respondent to hold an inquiry against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges of misconduct after he has been re-instated and then to give a finding one way or the other and take such action as the law permits if respondent considers it necessary. Costs on the parties.