DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI Hyderabad, dated 11-2-1987, whereby he allowed the grievance petition filed by the respondent Anis Javaid.
2. I have heard Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was admittedly employed as 'Line Man' by the Municipal Committee, Tando Allahyar. On 16-8-1984 he was charge-sheeted for remaining absent from duty which charge was not proved against him in the enquiry proceedings but during the course of enquiry it transpired that certain items of tools were not deposited by the respondent in spite of such letters. Second charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 3-4-1985. After domestic enquiry the respondent was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved by this order, after service of grievance notice he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the preliminary objection that the grievance petition under section 25-A was not maintainable. He has relied upon an un- reported decision of the learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi in Constitution Petition No, D-789 of 1981 Muhammad Dawood v. The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, wherein it has been held as Municipal Corporation, Karachi was `Statutory Body' governed by the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and it has its own 'Statutory Rules' of service therefore Standing Orders would not be applicable. Mr. Chohan has not been able to produce any 'Statutory Rules' of Service. However, even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the Local Councils, which include the appellant, have their own Statutory Rules of Service, it will only exclude the applicability of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 a 'workman' can invoke jurisdiction of the Labour Court to enforce any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law. It does not restrict the enforcement of the rights guaranteed under Standing Orders Ordinance only. Therefore, if the appellant is a workman he can invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O.
5. Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan further submits that 'Special Tribunal' had been created to hear the appeals of the employees of 'Local Council'. He has not been able to show the law under which 'Special Tribunal' had been created and if the jurisdiction of the Labour Court had been ousted under any law. The definition of worker or workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is much wider and includes every employee who is not employer but excludes the person employed in managerial or supervisory capacity drawing wages of more than rupees eight hundred per month. It is not alleged that the respondent is an employer nor there is any evidence that he was holding any post of managerial or supervisory nature therefore he would be a workman within the meaning of worker as defined under the I.R.O., 1969.
6. It is fundamental right of every employee to have charges proved against him in a fair and impartial enquiry. In the instant case enquiry papers have not been produced by the appellants.
However, the Enquiry Officer has been examined and he states that he had not examined P.W.
Tameezuddin in presence of the respondent. It may be pointed out from the Enquiry Report that only two witnesses had been examined by the Enquiry Officer namely Tameezuddin and Shafique Ahmed and one of them had not been examined in presence of the respondent. Such an enquiry cannot be considered fair and proper and report based on such enquiry is not sustainable.
Furthermore Ayoob Hassan, Enquiry Officer had admitted, before the learned Labour Court that brother of respondent was Partner of 'previous Chairman' Abdul Wahab, who had rivalry with the `Chairman' who passed the dismissal order.
7. In the cross-examination the Enquiry Officer had denied that applicant did not admit the missing of cutter plier. He further clarified by saying that after seeing statement of respondent, he would say that he did not admit it. The statement of the respondent before the Enquiry Officer had been produced as Ex.R/2. In that statement he had admitted that he was supplied cutter plier which he did not return because he was not asked to return the same and that he was prepared to return it.
The respondent had made similar admission even in the cross-examination before the learned 'Labour Court. However, the enquiry was held against the respondent on the charge that he had misused the cutter plier and as pointed out one of the witnesses was not examined in the presence of the respondent. It may also be pointed out that according to the appellants respondent was asked to hand over charge to Mr. Tameezuddin who was examined by the Enquiry Officer in the asbence of the respondent. Dismissal order based on such enquiry is not sustainable.
8. For the aforesaid reasons I see no merits in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.