DECISION These five appeals have been filed against: (a) The Award dated the 13th of October, 1973 given by the Second Sind Labour Court in applications filed by the respondents under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; and * (b) The Decision dated the 13tli of October, 1973, given l5y the Second Sind Labour Court in applications filed under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by the appellants against the respondents.
2. The learned Labour Court disposed of all the applications filed under section 25-A by the common Order dated the 13th of October, 1973. Similarly he has disposed of all the five applications filed under section 47 by another common Order of the same date.
3. At the very outset I may state that if the appellant wanted to question] two judgements given by the leamed Labour Court then two separate appeals] should, have been filed as both the Judgments cannot be challenged in the common appeals.
4. Since I have already held that Order given by a Labour Court under] section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is not apnealableus under section 37(311 will treat this appeal as being against the Award dated! the 13th of October, 1973 given by the learned Labour Court in the applications filed under section 25-A.
5. So far as the appeal pertains to be against the order given under section 47- A it is not maintainable both for the reasons that such an order is not appealable and for the reason that a common appeal cannot be filed against two separate judgments.
6. The Award given bv the learned Labour Court while disposing of the applications filed under section 25-A is a very brief judgment consisting of one paragraph and not accepting the applications. He has relied upon the reasons given by him in his decision of the same date rejecting the applications filed under section 47 of the Ordinance bv the appellant. For this reason while disposing of these appeals I will have to refer to the decision given under section 47-A.
7. The facts briefly put are that Mr. S. B. Ahmed, the then General Manager of BECO Industries Limited detected misappropriation and embezzlement of a large sum of money. The explanations of one Mr. Rauf, Cashier, were called for. He implicated himself and the five respondents before me alongwith others.
8. On the 17th of February, 1972 a suspension order was issued against the respondents suspending them from service with immediate effect pending an enquiry into their conduct in connection with the alleged embezzlement by Mr. Abdul Rauf.
9. By the above suspension order the respondents were also asked to state immediately as to why necessary action should not be taken against them.
10. The above order suspending the respondents indefinitely cannot be said to be a charge-sheet, however, this order was withdrawn on the 22nd of June, 1972 and the period of suspension was treated as leave without pay.
11. On the same day, I.e. on the 22nd of June, *1972. the respondents were issued another order suspending them for a period of four days and by the same order they were also charge sheeted for embezzlement of the amount mentioned in these orders and they were called upon to submit their explanations within 24 hours on the receipt of that order. It appears that the respondents then filed applications under section 25-A challenging the Suspension Order dated the 22nd of June, 1972 and in an application filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2. C. P. C. status quo order was passed by the learned Labour Court against the appellant in respect of the Enquiry. It appears that the Injunction Application was vacated on the 22nd of December, 1972 and thereafter the appellant proceeded to hold the Enquiry and ultimately applied under section 47 of the Ordinance to the Labour Court for permission to dismiss the respondents from service.
12. In accepting the applications filed under section 25-A, the learned Labour Court has disclosed by his detailed reasoning given in the decision dismissing the applications under section 47 relied lnter alia upon the following two circumstances: (a) That the respondents were called upon to furnish the explanations within 24 hours whereas according to ruling reported in 1971 PLC 533, they should have been given three days time ; (b) That the two main witnesses namely Mr. S. B. Ahmed, the then General Manager and Mr. Abdul Rauf, the Cashier, were not examined in the enquiry proceedings.
13. So far as the first reason is concerned I may state that the learned Labour Court lost sight of the fact that the ruling relied upon by him was under the East Pakistan Law which expressly lays down 3 days time should be given for submitting the explanation.
14. The learned Labour Court in a number of cases that came before me has relied on the aforesaid decision without caring to peruse it. If he had read it carefully he would have found that it was based on the East Pakistan Law whereas under the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, no such time for submission of reply has been laid. Thus what would constitute reasonable time would depend upon the circumstances of the case and in the matters before me I find that ( actually the explanations were submitted by the respondents on the 26 of June, 1972 and they have not stated therein that the time given to them to submit their explanation was insufficient.
15. Under the circumstances I would hold that 24 hours time was sufficient.
16. As regards the other reasons given by the learned Labour Court I would state that the holding of an enquiry is a managerial function and the filing of application under section 25-A the moment the charge-sheet is given by an employer is pre-mature and undesirable.
17. Moreover the learned Labour Court having concluded that the enquiry proceedings were not proper in the sense that two important witnessesl were not examined should have given the option to the Management to give^ further opportunity to the respondents by examining these witnesses. 18.
Under the circumstances I would set aside the Award dated the 13th of October, 1972 given under section 25-A and would give the following directions:-- (a) Admittedly the suspension order dated the 17th of February, 1972 was set aside by the appellant and the respondents were treated as being on leave with pay. If the respondents have not been paid their salary from the 17th of February, 1972 uptil 22nd of June, 1972 then such payment should be made within 3 days from the date of this Order; (b) If the appellants are desirous of proceeding with the enquiry then the Enquiry Officer should arrange to examine Mr. Abdul Rauf, Cashier and allow the respondents an opportunity to cross-examine him. The Police is requested to co-operate with the Enquiry Officer in producing the original of statement given by Mr. Abdul Rauf. The original to be returned by the Enquiry Officer after cross-examination of Mr. Rauf; (c)The Enquiry Officer should submit his report duly reconsidered after examining Mr. Rauf and the Management may then proceed to take further action, if any, in accordance with law; (d) If the Management fails to hold further enquiry and examine Mr. Rauf within 7 days from the date of this decision then the respondents will be entitled to receive their full wages from the date of suspension made on the 22nd of June, 1972 less suspension pay that may have been paid to them during the suspension period; and (e)If the Management has not paid the respondents the suspension pay in accordance with law for the period from 22nd of June, 1972 onwards it should do so forth-with within 3 days from the date of this Order.