DECISION This is an appeal against an order of the learned. Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated the 13th of February 1971, whereby the learned Court dismissed the appli--cation of the Collective Bargaining Agent under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The Bargaining Agent had prayed for re-instatement of Abdul Shakoor, Conductor, who, according to it was dismissed illegally by the District Manager.
2. Abdul Shakoor filed his own affidavit in support of the petition under section 34 of the Ordinance and that of Mohammad Azeem, who was travelling in the bus on 30th May 1970, when the bus of Abdul Shakoor was checked by Mohammad Ali, Traffic Assistant, who found certain irregula--rities for which Abdul Shakoor was charge-sheeted and dismissed from service. Abdul Shakoor stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that the District Manager did not hear him personally before dismissing him from service. Abdul Shakoor further stated that he was not supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report, so as to enable him to defend himself before the District Manager.
3. The learned Court ruled out the plea of Abdul Shakoor on the ground that what he deposed in his affidavit did not find place in the petition filed by the Bargaining Agent. In other words, the learned Court was of the view that the Bargaining Agent had not made out a grievance of the fact that Abdul Shakoor was not personally heard by the District Manager and that he was not supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report. In the Second place, the learned Court came to the conclusion that there was nothing on the record to Show that the Enquiry Officer's Report suffered from any violation of the principles of natural justice or was other--wise bad in any way. On these to grounds, the learned Court dismissed the petition of the Bargaining Agent.
4. The pleading of the parties under the Ordinance should not be to strictly construed. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitions are made by Labour Unions, who are not expected to be every much conversant with the rule of law. A Industrial Relations Ordinance a party cannot be represented by an Advocate unless the. Court so permits. Moreover in the present case the Bargaining Agent was not represented by any Advocate. In these circumstances, the Court should not have strictly construed the petition. The Bargaining Agent in paragraph 9, of the petition did mention that the order of dismissal was in violation of the principles of natural justice. How an at is in violation of the principles of natural justice, is a question of fact and depends upon the circumstances of each case. It is true that the Bargaining Agent did not specify tree at, which could make out that the order of the District Manager was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
This omission, however, was made good by Abdul Shakoor. He stated through an affidavit that the District Manager did not give him a personal hearing and that he was not supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report. What Is more important is that the Department did not challenge the deposition of Abdul Shakoor before the Court. The Department, in fact, did not care to defend the case before the learned Labour Court. The order-sheet would show that both the parties were present before the Court on 5th October 1970, when the Court fixed 9th December 1970, for evidence of both the parties. On 9th December 1970, no one was present for the Management.
Abdul Shakoor filed his affidavit. No attempt was made on behalf of the Department to request the Court to give it an opportunity to cross-examine Abdul Shakoor. In these circumstances, the affidavit of Abdul Shakoor as to the fact that he was not given an opportunity by the District Manager to be heard personally and that he was not supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to enable him to defend himself before the District Manager, must be accepted. For these reasons I would set aside the order of the learned Labour Court and order that Abdul Shakoor be re-instated. Abdul Shakoor would be entitled to a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report and a personal hearing by the District Manager. Abdul Shakoor is entitled to Rs. 150.00 as costs for both the Courts. This amount should be paid to the learned Representa--the for the appellant. So far as back benefits are concerned, this will depend upon the result of the order of the District Manager. If the District Manager holds that Abdul Shakoor is not guilty of the charge dated 3rd June 1970, he would be entitled to back benefits. With these observations, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Chairman of the Labour Court dated 13th February 1971, is set aside.