M. JAMIL ASGHAR (CHAIRMAN).-This is a petition by M. R. Hamid petitioner against Sh. Aftab Ahmad, General Manager 'Progressive Papers Limited, respondent under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 challenging his dismissal and praying that he be re instated with ail the benefits accruing to him under the law. In the petition it is mentioned that no regular enquiry was held against him and as such he was not given any opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him.
2. The respondent controverted the allegations by saying that all opportunities required under the law had beets given to the petitioner. The respondent also raised the following preliminary objections regarding -the competency of this petition:--
(1) That the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions as laid down under Standing Order 17 in so far as he did not bring his grievance to the notice of his employer within the prescribed period.
(2) That the petitioner not being an officer of a registered Trade Union was not competent to file this petition. Preliminary objection No.1
3. From, the evidence on the record we find that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet Exh. P. 2 on 5.10.1968, to which he submitted his reply vide communication Exh. R. 1, denying the allegations. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 10-10-1968, the copy of which is Exh. R.
3. The petitioner therefore appealed against-that order and as a result thereof he received notice dated 7-11-1968, the copy of which is Exb.P.4 requiring him to appear before the Managing Director on 12-11-1968. 'On the same day his appeal was dismissed and the petitioner was informed of the result vide order dated 12-11-1968, the copy of which is Exh. P.
5. The petitioner sent letter Exh. R. 2, dated 23-10-1968 bringing his grievance to the notice of the respondent. That letter was sent by registered post. According to Mohammad Shafi Record Clerk G. P. O. (P. W. 2) a registered letter addressed to Sh. Aftab Ahmad, General Manager of the respondent concern, was received at night post office G. P. O. Receipt Exh. P. 6, was issued, and the-registered letter was given to the Postman on duty for delivery on 24-10-1968. That on the same day the registered letter was received back at the post office with the remarks that the addressee was not available. On 25- 10-1968 the letter was given to the postman, but it could not be delivered as it was a Friday and that on 26-10-1968 it was eventually delivered at the office of the General Manager. This statement is corroborated by Postman Saeed Ahmad (P. W. 3) who actually delivered the letter.
4. According to Standing Order 18 a workman has to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer within 15 days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance. In the present case the grievance should have been brought to the notice of the General Manager by the 25th of October.
1968. Now the point which requires determination is as to whether this requirement has been fulfilled. From the perusal of Exh.R. 2, we find that it was dated .23-10-1968 and from the evidence of Record Keeper, Mohammad Shafi (P. W. 2) and Postman, Saeed Ahmad (P. W. 3) who are completely independent and disinterested, we find that the letter was received at the Post Office on 24-10-1968, and on the same day it was taken to the office of the General Manager, but his P. A. refused to take it on the ground that the General Manager was not present. On the next day, i.e. 25- 10-1968, which was Friday, Saeed Ahmad Postman, (P. W. 3) did not take the letter to the office of the General Manager as he (postman) was busy and that on 16-10-1968 he delivered that letter.
This shows that the fault lay with the P. A. whose duty it was to accept letters addressed to the General Manager and not with the petitioner. .
5. Further in view of the fact that the letter was taken to the office of the General Manager on 24-10- 1968, for delivery the petitioner is deemed to have brought his grievance to the notice of his employer within the prescribed period.
6.In the result the preliminary objection is overruled.
Preliminary objection No. 2
7. In order to appreciate this objection it will be proper to reproduce Standing Order 18, which reads as follows:- "Grievance procedure.-Any individual workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance and intends to seek redress thereof, shall observe the; following procedure--- -
(a) the workman concerned shall bring his grievance, to the notice of his employer, in writing, within fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance, and the employer shall, within thirty days of such grievance being brought to his notice, inquire into the matter, giving the workman concerned an opportunity of being heard, and communicate his decision, in writing, to the said workman;
(b) if the employer fails to give a decision within the period specified in clause (a) or if the workman is dissatisfied with such decision, the workman may make a complaint to the industrial Court having jurisdiction, within thirty days from the date of the decision, or where the employer fails to give a decision, within sixty days of the workman ~ bringing the grievance to the notice of the employer, unless the grievance has already been raised or has otherwise been taken cognizance of as an industrial dispute under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 Provided that no complaint shall lie against an order of termination of employment of a workman unless the workman concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the workman concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade Union or not, has been, deprived of the benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance; From the perusal of the above it is clear that an individual workman, who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance, can file a petition under Standing Order 18. It is not confined to a workman, who is an officer of registered Trade Union to file such a petition. The proviso t Standing Order 18 (a) and (b) simply means that if the employment of an officer of a registered Trade Union is terminated on account of his Trade Union activities, he can file a complain against the order of termination of his services. Standing order 15 (4) makes the dismissal of a workman illegal, if no reasonable opportunity is given to him to explain the circumstances all against him and as such he is entitled to get the order o dismissal set aside. The proviso to Standing Order 18 cannot take away this right, because a workman can seek redress, it' he has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance.
9. In the light of the above this preliminary objection is also overruled.
10. On merits it may be' mentioned that in the charge-sheet Exh. P.'2; It was stated that the petitioner had not only committed gross indiscipline by using abusive language towards his co--- worker but had- also gone to the extent of using physical violence, while he wins on duty. In Exit.R.1, which is the reply to the charge sheet, the petitioner had definitely denied the allegations made against him. In view of the above it was incumbent on the Management to hold a proper enquiry, in order to give a chance to the petitioner to explain away the allegations alleged against him. This we find has not been done.
11. This is clearly against the principles of natural justice.In the case, The University of Dacca through its Vice Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90) it was held "that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might result in consequences affecting the person or property or other right of the parties concerned. This rule applies even though there may be no positive words in the statute or legal document whereby the poweris vested to take such proceedings, for in such cases this requirement is to be implied into, it as the minimum requirement of fairness?
In view of the above we hold that the dismissal order was, illegal.
We accordingly accept the petition arid set aside the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner.