DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated March 13, 1971, whereby the application of the Union under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), was dismissed. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The case of the Union briefly put is that one Habibur Rehman who was a Conductor, was found by Raja Nazeer Ahmad Khan on 11th August 1969, that he had to punched tickets in his rack. Raja Nazeer Ahmad Khan also alleged that Habibur Rehman had misbehaved with him, Habibur Rehman was charge-sheeted or these to counts on 15th August 1969. Muhammad Ilyas held the enquiry against Habibur Rehman the District Manager dismissed Habibur Rehman on 29th November 1969, Habibur Rehman filed an appeal on 5th January 1970, which was dismissed on 5th February 1970, The Union, on 18th February 1970, filed an application under section 34 of the Ordinance giving rise to the present appeal.
3. Th. Main contention of Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the Union, is that Habibur Rehman had been greatly prejudiced in the absence of supply of the copy of Enquiry Officer's Report Ire conducting his appeal before the Deputy Director. In the circumstances of the present case, which I will presently mention, I find that there is much force in this contention. Had Habibur Rehman been supplied the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report, he would have been able to approach the Appellate Authority to accept the recommen--dation of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in his Report recommended after finding him guilty of the charges that Habibur Rehman's increment be stopped for one year. The Report is at page 61 of the record of the Labour Court. It appears from the note of the District Manager on the Enquiry Officer's Report that he first agreed with the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer. The District Manager wrote as under :- "Yes. As proposed by E. O."
4. The District Manager later on scored this out and wrote as under:- "(No) show-cause notice for dismissal. Very bad record."
5. In this connection, Mr. Majeed also contended that Habibur Rehman was not given an opportunity to show cause against bad record. He submitted that Habibur Rehman could not be dismissed from service for a cause for which he was not given a show-cause notice. This will be clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The fact, however, remains that Habibur Rehman could be dismissed if he was found guilty of misbehaviour and being in possession of to punched tickets. It was open to the Appellate Authority to ignore the past record of Habibur Rehman and to consider his appeal on merit. He could accept the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer or dismiss him from service.
6. I have come to the conclusion that Habibur Rahman had been greatly prejudiced to pursue his appeal in the absence of the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report. It is not the case of the Department that Habibur Rehman was supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report.
Wherever a person has a right to appeal against an order, he is entitled to have a copy of that order to enable him to challenge the grounds on which he had been found guilty. I would, in these circumstances, order Habibur Rehman to be re-instated, but I would not award him back benefits.
The Department to pay to the Union or its Representative Rs. 150 as costs. It would be open to the appellate Authority to pass such order on appeal as it considers proper in the interest of justice.
The appeal to be heard a very early date. Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi, who appears or the Department, undertakes to supply the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to Habibur Rehman within 3 days.