DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10-10-1984, passed by the Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits within one month of the said order.
2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondent was appointed as Greasser with effect from 26- 12-1960 and in the year 1983 he was promoted as Bulldozer Operator. He was also elected as General Secretary of Agricultural Engineering Workshop Employees Union, Khairpur Division in 1981 and 1983. On 6-6-1983 the respondent was charge-sheeted by the appellant that a bogus and false complaint against the appellant was got published in Daily 'Kaleem', dated 11-5-1983. Further, the respondent was alleged that he instigated the workers who were brought on regular establishment not to produce their domicile certificates. Therefore, on 6-7-1983, the respondent was placed under suspension and through another letter, one, Mr. Masood Ahmad Bhutto was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 11-7-1983, the respondent had submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet, but, on 31-7-1983 the respondent was informed that an enquiry against him will be conducted on 6-8-1983. The respondent appeared before the said Enquiry Officer and had submitted an objection on his appointment as an Enquiry Officer. It was further the case of the respondent that neither a reply to his objection was given by the Enquiry Officer, nor the respondent Establishment had examined any witness in his presence and nor he was supplied with the copy of the findings of the enquiry report and nor issued a second show-cause notice. That the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 31-R-1983, by an unauthorised person therefore, he served a grievance notice and subsequently filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court
3. The appellant in their reply statement before the Labour Court had admitted the employment of the respondent with them but had denied that either the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, or Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, or even the Factories Act would be applicable in the case of the respondent. Further, it was the case of the appellant that the respondent was a work- charge/contingent paid staff member but, with effect from 1-7-1983, with the approval of the Government, he was brought on regular establishment, therefore, he became a civil servant and hence, his grievance petition cannot be maintained in law. The appellant alleged that as the respondent was nuisance and was guilty of misconduct being engaged in subversive activities and created unrest among the other colleague and black mail the officers and obstructed smooth running of the Department", therefore, he was dismissed from service.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court framed two issues. Namely, (1) whether the applicant is civil servant or a workman: and (2) whether the impugned order of dismissal passed by the respondents is mala fide and is in violation of mandatory provisions of law. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned Advocate for the respondent, while, nemo was present on behalf of the appellant. I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The learned Labour Court had very elaborately and affectively answered the Issue at length and I need not to repeat the same here. I fully agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court and hold the same accordingly. However, from the record of the learned Labour Court it is crystal clear that the objections raised by the respondent during the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, were not at all considered by him. No copy of the rejection letter was brought on record. Likewise the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to the respondent and it is very strange that even the enquiry proceeding were also not '13 produced before the learned Labour Court . The Enquiry Officer was also not examined by the appellant. All this raise strong presumption that no fair, impartial and proper enquiry within the meaning of Standing Order 15(4) was held. It is also established from the record that no second show-cause notice was served to the respondent, irrespective of the fact that the alleged domestic enquiry was ex parte or otherwise. I am fortified with a case Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1973 SCMR 455, wherein the Supreme Court has held that "workman should be furnished with a copy of enquiry report against him and should also be given an opportunity to show cause against the order of dismissal". The mere fact that the workman had a personal audience with the employer is not enough. It was, therefore, held that the dismissal of the workman was illegal.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The respondent is to be re-instated in service with full back benefits within one month of this decision. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellant in this Tribunal be paid to the respondent, after due verification.
M. Y. H. /903/Lb.