1. The applicant filed the application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. stating therein that he was appointed by respondents on 1-12-1986 as production mechanic in blow room and he was permanent workman there. He submitted therein that on 1-6-1987 it was substitute holiday observed by the respondents but overtime was worked by the applicant, and on 2-6-1987 the applicant reported for duty at 10-30 p.m. for night shift, but the chowkidar at gate did not allow him to enter in the mills and told the applicant that there was order from the Labour Officer of the respondent to that effect. On 2-6-1987 the applicant was called by the Labour Officer who told the applicant that he was discharged and should come on 3-6-1987 to receive his earned wages only.
2. The applicant submitted that he insisted on the Labour Officer to give him something in writing about that but the Labour Officer refused. The applicant also submitted that this is usual practice of the respondents to orally dismiss or remove the workman from the employment and gate-stop him from the work, and when the workman issues any grievance notice then the respondents issue him a charge-sheet on false grounds that the workman is absenting from the duties. The applicant also submitted that when he issued a grievance notice the respondent came out with false reply that applicant was still on rolls of respondent and he was absenting from duties since 2-6-1987.
3. The applicant had sent a reply to the charge-sheet dated 4-7-1987 and he reported for duty on 4- 7-1987 but the Labour Officer persuaded the applicant unnecessarily to take the legal dues and he would not be taken back on duty. The applicant again reported for duty on 12-74987 but the Labour Officer again did not allow him to work and similarly it was done on 20-7-1987. The applicant submitted that he has been unlawfully removed from the employment hence he prays for reinstatement with continuity and wages of the period of forced and unlawful unemployment.
4. The respondents submitted the reply statement mainly pleading the plea that applicant was not terminated from the service and he was still on the rolls of the respondents but he was absent unlawfully since 2-6-1987 therefore issued a charge-sheet to which the applicant replied and applicant failed to report for duty despite the written notice requiring him to resume his duty. The respondents therefore, pray that the application of the applicant be dismissed as no right has accrued to the applicant for filing a case.
5. The applicant was examined and then the respondent led the evidence of the Manager of the mills and then closed his side.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the sides and also perused the record.
7. In this case the following points need to be determined:--
(1) Whether the application is maintainable under the law?
(2) Whether any right guaranteed under the law, of the applicant, has been infringed?
(3) Whether the applicant qualifies legally for the relief prayed by him? My findings and reasons are as under:-- Since all these three points are interdependent on one and another hence it would be proper to discuss all these points together. Mr. Khurshed Ahmed the learned counsel for the respondents, at the time of the arguments has played upon the plea that the application is premature because the applicant has not yet been terminated from the services but the applicant is facing the disciplinary action. He submits that in such circumstances the application needs to be dismissed because no right of the applicant, guaranteed under any law has yet been infringed. In support of his submission he has referred me to a ruling reported at 1978 PLC 475.
8. Such submission of the learned counsel for the respondents necessitated the Court to ponder over the case papers minutely and evaluate the evidence. The applicant has clearly pleaded that he was orally removed from the service and gate stopped from joining the duty by the Labour Officer.
9. In such situation it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to produce the Labour Officer and subject him to the cross-examination so that he could have been asked whether allegation of gate stopping by him was correct or not. The Labour Officer could not be expected to be produced by the applicant because a Labour Officer is the employee of the respondents/management and he can be produced only by the management. The record reveals that the respondents did not discharge such duty and did not produce such Labour Officer to refute such allegation. Thus the A allegation stands established because it stands not refuted legally. The record also reveals that the applicant had been residing within the premises of the mills and he was compelled to take away his lodging and bedding with the aid of the police. The applicant has stated such facts in cross- examination. This fact also shows that the applicant was so much compelled to seek the police aid for even taking back his bed and cot from his quarter in which he used to reside. This shows that the respondents had no soft corner in the hearts for the workman and they created such situation which could compel the workman to leave the residential quarter situated inside the premises of the mills and he could not even take his own belongings without police aid. This also reflects that his allegation that he was gate stopped from entering the mills is not false but true. The learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments has produced the letter from Personnel Manager Al-Karim Textile Mills addressed to the respondents wherein it is written that applicant is working with Al-Karam Textile Mills since 2-8-1987. Although the learned counsel did not examine the person who has written this letter yet by producing this letter he has rather corroborated the contention of the applicant that the applicant was actually removed from the service by the respondent which necessitated him to seek job in Al-Karam Textile Mills. As per West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, Order 12(3) a workman who has been even removed and being aggrieved by that can seek remedy under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The law requires the employer to furnish an order in writing to the workman regarding termination or removal or his discharge or dismissal. But if the employer is clever enough to not do so and orally dispenses with the service of the workman, the legislature expecting such aspect has wisely inserted the word removal also in the provision of law so that a workman can seek remedy even if he is removed orally by his employer so that the employer cannot act cleverly to defeat the ends of justice. The record also reveals that the respondent did not institute any enquiry against the applicant although he had replied to the charge-sheet promptly. Thus it also shows that the respondents wanted to circumvent the requirements of the law. One year had passed but still the respondents plead that the applicant is yet not terminated from the service and he is facing disciplinary action.
10. For whole one year the respondents neither instituted any enquiry against the applicant nor duly served any enquiry notice on him nor examined any body in the enquiry against him. In such circumstances it cannot be legally said that the applicant is facing any enquiry or he continues on duty. The learned counsel for the respondents cannot solicit the support from the said authority quoted by him and reported in 1978 PLC 475 wherein it was held: "Section 25-A of I.R.O.--Petitioner on duty facing departmental enquiry--Petition, in circumstance, held, rightly dismissed as premature."
11. In the present case the facts are different because the petitioner is not facing any departmental enquiry nor any enquiry is conducted against him although 12 months have passed away from the charge-sheet. Nor the petitioner continues to he on duty.
12. Thus it becomes clear that the applicant has been removed from the service illegally by the respondents and his right guaranteed by law has been infringed and legally qualifies for the relief he has prayed for.
13. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to order that the applicant be reinstated by the respondents within one month of the order with all back benefits. Undoubtedly the respondents have put forth an abortive attempt to convince the Court that the applicant has been gainfully employed somewhere else by simply producing a letter from the Personnel Manager of Al-Karam Textile Mills.
14. Had they examined the said Personnel Manager of the Al-Karam Management then it could have been said that they have legally established that the applicant has been gainfully' employed somewhere else during this period. Moreover, it is well-settled law that whenever it is found that the termination or removal of a workman is illegal, the workman legally stands entitled to the back benefits. As such I have deemed it proper to order he be also given the back benefits.