DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi date April 2, 1.973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the re-instatement of Azizullah Khan the respondent, with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court also observed that it would be open to the National Shipping Corporation (hereinafter called the appellant- Corporation), to hold an enquiry in conformity with law and take such action as it considers necessary. The facts are these.
2. The respondent was employed by the appellant-Corporation on 22-12-70 as Assistant Diesel Mechanic. On 13th March 1971, the respondent was signed on ship m.v. Padma. The case of the respondent was that Mr. Yousaf Ali, Engineer, had taken a dislike for him as he had refused to prepare tea for him and other Engineers. The respondent also said that he was manhandled by the Engineers. The respondent was eventually, when the ship was at Dar-es-Salam Port, repatriated to Karachi by giving him "dirty report". On 12th June 1972, the respondent was delivered a Memorandum stating drat consequent, upon his repeated late, attendance, misbehaviour and refusal to obey orders, he was being removed from their roster. The respondent had also received a notice dated 7-7-1972, from Government Shipping Office, Karachi, to show cause why his continuous Discharge Certificate be not cancelled.
3. The case of the appellant-Corporation was that on 15th May 1972 the Master of the ship m.v.
Padma reported by telegram that the respondent and two other Diesel Mechanics on board had refused ten clean the main engine and were disobedient to the orders of the Engineer and that they demanded to be repatriated to Karachi. The entries in the official Log Book of the ship show that the respondent had started creating trouble on board as early as 12th May 1972, while the ship was still at sea. The appellant-- Corporation had filed copy of the Log Book entries relating to the respondent. At Dar-es-Salam Port the respondent, and other mechanics went to Pakistan Embassy.
The Commercial Secretary of Pakistan Embassy tried to persuade the Diesel Mechanics to do their jobs, but they refused to accept his request. They insisted that they should be repatriated to Karachi. The report of the Commercial Secretary of Pakistan at Dar-es--Salam is on the record of the case. It would appear front the report of the Master of the ship m.v. Padma dated 2nd June 1972, that an enquiry was held on 19th May 1972, in the presence of Chief Engineer and Second Engineer against the respondent. The resp9ndent had also produced his witnesses. It would appear from the report of the Master of m.v. Padma that the respondent was given "bad discharge" and a request was were for necessary action.
4. The case of the appellant was that as the respondent was always late in attendance on duty and because of his misbehaviour and refusal to obey orders he was signed of at Dar-es-Salam and repatriated to Karachi. The Corporation was also constrained to remove him from their roster.
This order is dated 12th June 1972. The respondent has challenged this order as being against the principle of natural justice.
5. The appellant-Corporation contended that the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance), do not apply to the appellant-Corporation.
6. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent filed his own affidavit and he has been cross- examined, On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, Commander Mohammad Khan has filed his affidavit. It is noteworthy that he has not been cross-examined, it would appear from the affidavit filed by Commander Mohammad Khan, who is Deputy Engineering Superintendent, National Shipping Corporation, that the Master of the Ship had held an enquiry in the presence of the Chief Engineer and the Second Engineer as to the allegations against the respondent. The report of the Master of the shier is dated 2nd June 1972, and is on the record of the case. Commander Mohammad Khan maintained that the allegation of the respondent that no enquiry was held was baseless and contrary to the acts. It would further appear from his affidavit that the respondent had refused to work and insisted to be repatriated to Karachi, The Master of the ship was compelled to give adverse report in the respondent's Continuous Discharge Certificate (C. D. C.) and send him back to Karachi. The C. D. C. Was issued on the recommendation of the appellant -- Corporation and, therefore, the Corporation was compelled after the report of the Master of ship to ask for its cancellation.
7. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance applied to the appellant --Corporation. The learned Labour Court further held that the Corporation having not issued any show-cause notice before removing the name of the respondent from its roster the same was in violation of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
8. The first question that requires consideration is as to whether the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance apply to the appellant --Corporation or not. The proviso to section I of the Standing Orders Ordinance, reads as under :-- "Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Central or Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein;"
9. Before the Corporation care claim the benefit of the proviso, two things have to be established, namely, (1) that it is run under the authority of the Central or Provincial Government and (2) that statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein. So far as the first question is concerned, I have no doubt that the Corporation is run under the authority of the Central Government. So far as the second question is concerned, Mr. Mujtahid Hussain, the learned Representative for the appellant-Corporation, was not able to produce any statutory rules, applicable to crew. There are no doubt Statutory Service Rules applicable to civilian employees, but admittedly these rules do not apply to seamen. Mr. Mujtahid Hussain contended that the Agreements of Foreign-Going Ships had been issued by the Government of Pakistan, which are on the record of the case and, therefore, they should be treated statutory rules. This is only an agreement between the Master of the ship, and the seamen. It is true that these agreements have the binding force on the seamen, who have entered into these agreements. I would hold, in tit absence of any statutory rules relating to seamen, that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance do apply to the Corporation in respect of seamen.
10. The next question is if the Corporation without any show-cause notice could remove the name of the respondent from their roster. I have come to the conclusion, as Commander Mohammad Khan has not been cross-examined that what he be stated in his affidavit about the enquiry against the respondent and his misbehaviour are correct. It is noteworthy that the respondent had not alleged anything against the Corporation or against Commander Mohammad Khan, so as to lead one to the conclusion that they hart any motive to create false evidence against him. Mr. Mujtahid Hussain has not shown us any law which obliged the appellant-Corporation to remove the name of the respondent from their roster, the Master of the ship gave a bad report to the respondent. Had their law been that the Corporation had no other alternative but to remove the name of the respondent from their roster in case of bad report from the Master of the ship, it could have been urged with some force that show cause notice would have been of mere formality and of no useful purpose. In the present case I would accept the statement of Commander Mohammad Khan, as the same has not been challenged by the respondent that the enquiry was held by the Master of the ship in compliance with the principle of natural justice, but still on the respondent showing good cause in response to the notice for removal of his name from their roster it was possible for the Corporation to take some other action, instead of removing his name from their roster. In that view of the matter, I would hold that the order of the appellant --Corporation dated 12th June 1972, removing the name of the respondent from their roster is against the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance and, therefore, bad in law. It would, however, be open to tile appellant --Corporation, as observed by the learned Labour Court, to pass such order as the Corporation deems necessary after giving a show-cause notice to the respondent in compliance with Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, just as the Shipping Master, Karachi, gave a notice to the respondent on 7th July 1972, to show cause why his C. D. C. Should not be cancelled by their office.
11. So far as the question of back benefits are concerned, that will depend upon the result of the show-cause notice by the appellant-- Corporation.
12. In the result, the award of the learned Labour Court is modified to this extent that the respondent may be re-instated, but would not get any back benefit, which would depend upon the show- cause notice. The appellant to pay Rs. 200 as costs to the respondent within one week.