DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated December 31, 1971, whereby the learned Court dismissed the application of the appellant under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance of 1968). For the purposes of the disposal of this appeal, it would not be necessary to mention in detail the charges against the appel--lant. It would be sufficient to state that the appellant was charge-sheeted on 10th November 1966, and 24th November 1966, under section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter called the Ordinance of 1961). Mr. Arz Muhammad Abro was appointed Enquiry Officer. He examined, on behalf of the prosecution, Mr. Bokhari, Assistant Traffic Manager and Mr. Muhammad Khan, Traffic Assistant. He found that the appellant was guilty of misconduct, inasmuch as, he had realized fare from some of the passengers without issuing tickets to them.
2. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended in the first place that the appellant was falsely implicated in the to charges because of enmity with one Jamal-uddin, who was Traffic Assistant. It was stated by Mr. Wasi Ahmad that Jamal-uddin was also a Conductor and eras working with the appellant before his promotion as Traffic Assistant. It was while Jamal-uddin was a Conductor that some enmity had developed between the appellant and Jamaluddin. It was contended that on both the occasions, i.e. On 10th November 1966, and 24th November 1966, when the appellant's bus was checked, Jamal-uddin accompanied Mr. Bokhari and Mr. Muhammad Khan. His submission, in short, was that it was because of the enmity of Jamal-uddin that the appellant was involved in these to cases. I have gone through the statement of Mr. Muhammad Khan and that of Wasidad Khan, the appellant. I do not find that the appellant had succeeded in making out a case of false implication. There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Bokhari and Mr. Muhammad Khan had any motive, whatsoever, to side Jamal-uddin to falsely implicate the appellant. The appellant admitted before the learned Labour Court that he had thoroughly cross-examined Mr. Muhammad Khan and although he was given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Bokhari, he refused to do so. In these circumstances, I do not find any basis to support the contention that the appellant was falsely implicated because of his enmity with Jamal-uddin.
3. In the second place, it was contended by the learned Representative for the appellant, that the appellant was not given a personal hearing by the District Manager. In support of this contention, he referred to the examination of Mr. Arz Muhammad Abro. Mr. Arc Muhammad Abro stated in his exami--nation-in-chief that the appellant was heard by the District Manager. In his cross- examination, however, he stated that whenever the District Manager heard any person found guilty of misconduct, a note to that effect was made on the file. Mr. Wasi Ahmad contended that in the present case there being no note on the file that the District Manager had beard the appellant, this Court should conclude that the appellant was not heard by the District Manager. In the interest of justice, however, I have allowed Mr. Azmat-ullah Khan, the learned Representative for the respondent, to file a copy of the District Manager's order. The concluding portion of the order reads as under :- "He was also heard in person but he could not put forth any convincing arguments in his defence."
4. I have no reason to disbelieve District Manager that he heard the appellant in person while ordering his dismissal from service.
5. In the third place, it was contended by the learned Representative for the appellant that the appellant was only given 3 days the to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. In this connection, Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned Representative for the appellant, relied on the case of District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad (1) in support of his contention that 3 days the for submitting reply to the charge sheet was not sufficient. Whether 3 days the was sufficient submit a reply to the charge-sheet or not will depend upon the circumstances of each case. In the case relied upon by the learned Representative for the appellant. I found that the appellant all along remained on duty and had no the to make a proper reply to the charge-sheet. In the present case.
There is nothing to show that 3 days the was not sufficient for the appellant to reply to the charge- sheet.
6. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that though the appellant resigned from the office of the Union, he continued to be a Member of the Union and since he was concerned with the pending Industrial dispute his services could not be terminated without the permission of the Court. There is not much force in this contention. Provision of `section 37 of 1968-Ordinance is very clear. In the case of an ordinary member of the Union no per--mission of the Court is necessary, if he is being dismissed for misconduct,. Which is not connected with the industrial dispute that was pending at that the. It is not the case of the appellant that the industrial dispute that was pending had anything to do with the subject-matter of the charges levelled against him. In this connection, Mr. Wasi Ahmad also submitted that the appellant resigned from the office that he was holding in the Union because of some inducement given by the Management. There is no material on the record to come to the conclusion that the appellant resigned from the membership of the Union as a result of persuasion by the Management.
7. It was also contended by the learned Representative for the appellant that section 7 of the Ordinance of 1961, does not authorise the Management to dismiss the appellant. Section 7 of 1961- Ordinance deals with restriction on termination of service of an employee. Under the said provision of law the services of a worker cannot be dispensed with by the 'Management, unless he is given one month's previous notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. A notice however, would not be necessary in the case where the worker has been found guilty of misconduct. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the principle) of master and servant is applicable subject to the provisions of the Standing Order and any other law that may be applicable. The master is entitled to dismiss his employee under the ordinary common law. However, certain conditions have been put on the power of dismissal by the employer. The conditions are that the employer must furnish the charge-sheet to the employee must give him an opportunity to be heard and cross- examine this prosecution witnesses. Subject to these conditions, the power oil the master is not restricted to dismiss a servant.
8. Lastly, It was contended by Mr. Wasi Ahmad that the appellant should have been given a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report in order to enable him to meet the ground on which the plea of innocence was found untenable by the Enquiry Officer. The admitted position is that the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report was not given to the appellant to enable him to represent his case before the District Manager. All that Mr. Azmat-ullah Khan, the learned Representative for the Management, stated was that in 1966 when the appellant was charge-sheeted the practice was not to supply a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to the persons charge-sheeted and found guilty. This practice on the part of the Management, however, will not cure the defect. In this connection, Mr. Wasi Ahead- relied on to of my orders reported in 1970 PLC 570 and 1970 PLC 577. I had given elaborate reasons in these cases for the conclusion that it was incumbent on the part of the Management to supply a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to comply with the principle of natural Justice. On the ground that the appellant was not supplied the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report, would set aside the award of the learned Court and order that the appellant should be, re- instated. He should be supplied with the copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report within a week from today. The learned District Manager to hear the appellant before passing any order. The appellant will be entitled to Rs. 150.00 as costs. So far as back benefits are concerned, it will depend upon the result of the order that the District Manager may pass. If he finds that the appellant was not guilty, he may allow him such benefit as he thinks proper. Ordinarily, on re-instatement the appellant would have been entitled to full back benefits, but in the present case now that the appellant had been dismissed in 1966 and there is a nothing on record to show that he had remained without a job, it will depend upon the District Manager to allow such benefit as he thinks will meet the ends of Justice, in case he were to find that the charges against the appellant were not proved.