1. DECISION These are 2 cross appeals filed against the Order dated 28-12-1974, passed by the learned Junior Labour Court No. 3. by which the leamed Court had held domestic enquiry against Asadullah as not legal and proper, but dismissed the application of the appellant Asadullah under section 25-A of I. R. O., as time-barred. Appellant Asadullah being aggrieved by the said order has filed this appeal on the ground that the application was not time-barred whereas the contention of the Management is that the learned lower Court had erroneously remarked that the domestic enquiry held against appellant Asadullah wa Asadullah v. Roneo Vickers Ltd. (A. B. A. Memon, Presiding Officer) illegal and therefore the remarks of the learned lower Court that it was a bad enquiry should be set aside. The facts of the case are as under: "Appellant Asadullah was working as Stock Clerk with Messrs Roneo Vickers Limited since 1967. He was nowever, implicated in a case of misappropriation of Rs. 44,754 58 and such report was filed with Pol ce. He was challaned in criminal Court and was bailed out on 26-5-1972, when he reported for duty but the respondent refused to take him back and put him under suspension. He bad filed an application under section 34 of I. R. O. in this Court and on 2-2-1973 he was re-instated in service. The respondents went in appeal before the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and the learned Tribunal ordered for fresh domestic enquiry to be held against appellant Asadullaji. The Management bad held domestic enquiry against him in which he was found guilty and after the second show-cause notice, his explanation was obtained which was not satisfactory and as such he was dismissed from service on 9-7-1973. According to Asadullah he was informed on 5-6-1974 that his services were terminated and therefore, on 28-10-1974 he filed the application under section 25-A of I. R. O. in the Junior Labour Court. Meanwhile he^as also acquitted by the criminal Court from the criminal case of misappropriation. I have heard the Representatives of the parties. I have also gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court, to be able to examine the various contentions raised by the two parties. The record shows that after the decision by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal directing the respondent Management to institute an , enquiry, Asadullah was issued fresh enquiry letter dated 2nd May 1973 whereafter he fully participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses and he was given every opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry papers show that Asadullah bad signed every page of the enquiry proceedings. In spite of all this it is strange that Asadullah contended that he was not given opportunity to defend himself, which is all baseless having no bearing from the record. The appellant further contended that the Company had not examined certain witnesses on behalf of the Company as such he was prejudiced. The objection obviously is frivolous as it is not for him to instruct the Company to examine or not to examine Messrs Asghar, Hameed, Sahibuddin and Usman, as Company's witnesses. It was the discretion of the Company itself to examine any number of witnesses it may deem fit in support of its case and if the appellant wanted to examine these witnesses he should do so on his behalf. To these objections the Management had made a suitable reply dated 22-5-1973 Exh. 1-G in which the Enquiry Officer had told Asadullah that if he wanted to produce Messrs Asghar Hameed, Sahibuddin and Usman as his own witnesses, he was allowed to do so as the Management had already closed its side. The facts on the record amply show that the enquiry was legally held in which appellant Asadullah was given, full opportunity to participate and defend himself. I therefore hold that the enquiry was legal and fair, and was held according to principles of natural justice. The learned Representative for appellant Asadullah contended that Asadullah was acquitted by criminal Court therefore the enquiry was all fake, but the circumstances show that he was not given clean slate by the criminal Court. Our Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Shamim Ahmed v. Pakistan Tobacco (1) held that the question whether a worker had (1) PLJ 1975 SC 24 committed theft or not is a question of fact and it can only be enquired by Enquiry Court, and the contention that theft being an offence, only criminal Court could proceed against the accused and no disciplinary action be taken, is not sustainable. It may be mentioned here that the two actions are quite independent of each other. It is commonly known fact that the persons are tried in criminal Courts for embezzlement and at the same time departmental action is also taken against them.
2. The learned counsel for Asadullah further argued that the application of the respondent was within time, and the Court had erroneously held it to be time-barred. The facts on record show that Asadullah was dismissed from service on 19-7-1973 and on 16-8-1973 he had served a grievance notice which is Annexure *F* to the reply statement. This notice finds place at pages 241 and 243 of the record of the Junior Labour Court. After sendingl this grievance notice, Asadullah had remained quiet till 28-10-1974 when heL filed his application under section 25-A of I. R. O. in the Junior Labour Courtl which is clearly time-barred. Section 25-A of I. R. O. describes the procedures adopted by an aggrieved workman for redress of individual grievance. According to this section, the aggrieved worker is to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer within 3 months and the employer shall within 15 days communicate his decision but if the employer fads to communicate the same within the prescribed time then the worker who desires to take the matter to the Junior Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of communication of the employer as the case may be. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that when a statute creates any rights and obligations, prescribes the mode of their enjoyment or enforcement, such provisions are considered mandatory and the Legislature intends strict compliance of such provisions. I therefore hold that since appellant Asadullah has not filed the application before Junior Labour Court according to the prescribed time, it is clearly time-barred. In case of Nasim Silk Mills (1) our High Court held that as the provisions of section 25-A of I. R. O., subsection (1) to (4) are not complied with, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. I therefore find that the application under section 25-A of I. R. O. filed by appellant Asadullah was not maintainable. The order of the learned Junior Labour Court therefore does not call for such interference and his appeal is dismissed. The appeal of the Management is however accepted. (1)
3. PLJ 1974 Kar. 80