DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 18-10-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.II, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Muhammad Kamil Arzani, filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, Muhammad Kamil Arzani, claimed to have been working as Assistant Accountant with the appellant establishment for the last six years and was drawing the wages at Rs.1,500/- per month. Further, that as the appellants establishment had neither provided to its workers the benefits in accordance with the provisions of Labour Laws and also exploited them in violation of all its provisions, nor their wages were being paid regularly every month; therefore, he alongwith six other workers submitted an application bringing to the notice of their employer the above illegalities which was replied by the appellants establishment, vide their letter dated 30-6-1985. That on 30-6-1985 when the respondent reported for duty, he was asked to leave the office room and sit outside where he remained till 4-30 p.m. When the Managing Director of the appellants establishment came there and abused him and thereafter he was not permitted to perform his duties and remained suspended without any charge-sheet or enquiry against him.
Thus, after serving the grievance notice upon the appellants establishment, the respondent submitted his grievance petition before the Labour Court
3. The appellants establishment resisted the petition before the learned Labour Court and submitted that the respondent was their employee and was getting Rs.1,500/- per month and that they were not denying the workers benefits under Labour Laws or violating the provisions of the same. They, however, admitted the receipt of an application /complaint, dated 26-6-1985 from the respondent and six other workers, but, had submitted that as it amounted to unfair labour practice, therefore, the respondent was suspended with immediate effect. Further, the appellants establishment had submitted that since the respondent was under suspension, therefore, they did not consider it fit or safe to allow the respondent to enter into the premises and to check the official record. On 29-7-1985, the respondent was issued a show-cause notice through registered A/D post, but, in his explanation to that notice, the respondent used malicious language and had levelled accusation against the Managing Director of the appellants establishment, so, he lost his right to serve the establishment. However, the appellant establishment had denied the suspension as illegal and had submitted that before any action could be taken against the respondent, he filed a petition in Court, therefore, it was not advisable for them to proceed ahead against the respondents. The appellant establishment prayed that the petition of the respondent be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
The learned labour Court, thereafter, had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Zamiruddin Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellants establishment and Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also very carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent workman was not dismissed/ terminated from service but vide letter of the appellant establishment, dated 30-6-1986, they had suspended the respondent for an indefinite period and according to the evidence on record, after suspension, the respondent was not allowed to perform duty and also was not paid any subsistance allowance since the date of suspension. It is a Law that suspension of a worker is governed by Standing Order 15(8) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and empowers an employer to suspend a worker for the purpose of conducting an enquiry for misconduct of workman and such suspension can be for a period not exceeding four days at a time and the total period of such suspension is not to exceed four weeks. Therefore, it is the mandatory requirement of Law that suspension of a worker can take place only when there is an allegation of misconduct against him and an enquiry has been ordered. It is strange that in the present case, admittedly, no allegation of misconduct was levelled against the respondent nor a domestic enquiry was ordered when he was suspended, for an indefinite period. In view of this legal and factual position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held the grievance petition, under section 25-A , I . R.O. , 1969, of the respondent as maintainable.
6. As regards the merits of the case, in view of the admission of the appellants establishment on record, the respondent was neither issued a charge-sheet nor a domestic enquiry was held dismissing/ terminating his services, nor an illegal and indefinite suspension was removed/ withdrawn and nor even, he was paid any subsistance allowance of his suspension period.
Therefore, in view the admitted B illegalities on the part of the appellant/establishment, the respondent workman was quite entitled to be reinstated in service with full back benefits, hence, the learned Labour Court was correct to allow the grievance petition of the respondent, under section 25-A , I . R .O. 1 1969.
7. 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 dismissed accordingly. The respondent workman, namely, C Muhammad Kamil Arzani, is directed to be reinstated in service of the appellants establishment with full back benefits forthwith.