1. ORDER Being aggrieved by the Order dated 25-8-1973 passed by the learned Presiding Officer ci Junior Labour Court No. l (Air. Zaidi) aliowmg the application of the respondent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the appellants above-named have filed this appeal. The respondent's case briefly stated was that he was appointed as a Clerk on 30-8-1962 in the appellants' concern. Subsequently he earned promotions and became an Accounts Assistant. At the time of his dismissal from service, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 670 per month. He was allegedly suspended by the appellants in violation of rules and was later subjected to an enquiry which according to him was also illegal and unfair inasmuch as he was not allowed a fair opportunity of defence. Accordingly he claims that his dismissal from service under orders dated 3-7-1973 is illegal and it is on these grounds that he filed the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the lower Court praying for re-instatement in service with full back benefits. The appellants contested the case of the respondents. They admit the appointment and the promotion etc. They state that while he worked as an Accountant, he was found to have committed serious omissions and discrepancies in the accounts and was, therefore, required to explain them. This explanation was not accepted and he was required to face an inquiry which he had attended with full opportunity of defence and that it was as a result of this that he was found guilty and then dismissed from service after a proper second Show-Cause Notice. Thus according to them, the dismissal of the respondent has been legal and proper. They have also raised a legal objection with regard to the maintainability of his application on the ground that the respondent was not a workman at the time of his dismissal. The learned lower Court on the above-mentioned pleadings framed the following points for determination :-- (1)
2. Whether the applicant is a workman? (2) Whether proper enquiry was conducted against him and a fair chance was given to him to participate in the enquiry, and (3) Whether the order of dismissal is legal? The learned lower Court has held that the respondent is a workman and that the enquiry conducted against him was fair and proper. However, on the third point it has held that the order of dismissal is not legal inasmuch as written sanction of the employer for dismissal has not been obtained by the Personnel Officer. On this finding, it has allowed the application of the respondent in the following way:-- "The dismissal order dated 3-7-1973 is signed |by Mr. M. A. Habibr Personnel Manager, who is not competent authority to terminate the services of a workman, as stated by Mr. H. H. Butt, one of the respondents witness. Keeping these facts into consideration, I set aside the order of dismissal of the applicant and further direct the Management to institute fresh inquiry against the app'icant and pass necessary order as there are serious charges of misappropriation etc. against the applicant. So far as the payment of back benefits is concerned, the same be paid to the applicant in case he is absolved of the charges in the fresh inquiry, otherwise not." 165 The appellants have felt aggrieved of this Order with regard to the Points Nos. 1 and 3 only and filed this appeal. It may be stated that the respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the decision of point No. 2. I, therefore, propose to deal with Points Nos. I and 3 only. I have gone through the written arguments and also perused the record of the lower Court. On Point No. 1, it must be stated that facts differ in each and every case and Case-Law cannot be applied without comparison of facts, ln this particular case, I am obliged to feel that the appellants have held the enquiry against him treating him as a worker. Otherwise the enquiry was not at all necessary. Further particularly in this case I find that the evidence has been properly considered and rejected by the learned lower Court and its conclusion that the respondent was not proved to be a person responsible for the Management, supervision and control of the establishment, is perfectly correct. The Case-Law cited by the appellants cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The learned lower Court has given its reasons for the aforesaid conclusion. They being well- reasoned and correct nothing more is required to be stated here. Accordingly the lower Court's finding on this point is upheld. On the Point No. 3, the learned lower Court has referred to Standing Order 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereiriafter referred as the Ordinance of 1968) and stated that the term "approval" in it, refers to' and means approval in writing, and that since no such approval has been obtained, the order of termination is illegal. 1 have given anxious thoughts over this point in the light of the arguments tendered before me. A mere perusal of the Standing Order 15(4) of the Ordinance of 1968 shows that a dismissal order cannot be passed unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is further given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. However, the later part of it which deals with the question of dismissal does not mention the word "in writing" and by this the only interpretation which arises is that the approval of the employer need not be necessarily in writing. Apart from this I find that the Personnel Officer who signed the dismissal order with the oral approval of the employer, is himself a part of the employers* establishment and as such would be presumed to have passed that order under a proper authority. The very fact that the employer in this application has not denied his approval it is sufficient to conclude that this approval of the employer for the dismissal of the respondent had been accorded. I accordingly find nothing improper in the order of dismissal. The lower Court's order of a fresh enquiry after answering the Point No. 2 in the appellant's favour is also improper and incorrect. The enquiry being proper, the order of dismissal is, therefore, found to be legal. Accordingly disagreeing with the lower Court's Order on Point No. 3 and agreeing with it on other points, I allow this appeal and in its result, the relevant order of the lower Court is hereby set aside. Consequently the applicat'on under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 stands dismissed. Application dismissed.
3. Announced in open Court.