ORDER Muhammad Islam, formerly a bus conductor, was employed by the Lahore Omni Bus Service, which is under the administrative control of the Road Transport Corparation, Lahore. On 2- 12-1965, he was dismissed from service by the District Manager of the Lahore Omni Bus Service. He was re-instated under the award of the West Pakistan Industrial Court, Central Zone, Lahore with effect from 2-5-1968. In the award it was mentioned that he was not entitled to wages for the period not served by him in the Lahore Omni Bus Service. Against tha' award he went up in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, who vide order dated 3-4-1969 accepted the appeal and modified the order of the Industrial Court by allowing him wages for the period when he was unemployed.
That order is reported in 1969 PLC 545. On 31-5-1968 a charge-sheet Exh. P-4 was given to Muhammad Islam and he was asked tp submit his reply within 3 days. In that charge-sheet allegation against him was that he had taken 21 paisas from three passengers without issuing them tickets. Another allegation against him was that he had refused to reply on the form T. T. 40 and had misbehaved with the checker. His reply to the charge- sheet is Exh. P-5 dated 11-6-68. In that reply he has denied the allegations. Thereafter, one Ch. Muhammad Rafiq held an enquiry against him. It was alleged that he was not given any opportunity to produce his defence even though he had submitted several written applications indicating his desire to produce witnesses in his own defence. On 15-8-1968, a second show-cause notice Exh. P-14 was issued to Muhammad Islam, and he was asked to reply within 3 days. That show-cause notice was not accompanied by the Inquiry Officer's report. On 20-8-68, Muhammad Islam was produced before the District Manager, Lahore Omni Bus Service, who on that very day passed an order dismissing Muhammad Islam from service. Copy of that order is Exh. P-16.
2. Aggrieved by that order, Muhammad Islam filed an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 before the West Pakistan Industrial Court, Central Zone, Lahore. The learned Chairman vide his order dated 16-5-1970 accepted the application and ordered the re-instatement of Muhammad Islam immediately with full benefits. This order was passed mainly on the grounds :-- (<) That there had been a gross violation of principles of natural justice because Muhammad Islam was given only 3 days' time to submit his reply to the charge-sheet as well as his reply to the second show- cause notice. (//) That no copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was sent alongwith the second show- cause notice.
3. Aggrieved by that order the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore has come up in appeal to this Court.
4. Mr. Mahammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate, for the appellant con tended that the application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 was not competent because there was neither any conciliation proceedings nor proceedings before the Court or Tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute pending at the time when the application was filed. On merits, he raised the following contentions :-- ^ . (/) That principles of natural justice had not been violated because only 3 days* time was given to the respondent to reply to the charge-sheet as well as to the second show-cause notice. (ii) That there was no provision in the rules for the supply of Inquiry Officer's report with the second show-cause notice.
5. In rebuttal Mr. Nazir Ahmed Naz, Representative of the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the application contended that at that time there were four industrial disputes pending which concerned the respondent.
6. On merits he contended that principles of natural justice had been violated because, in the first place, only 3 days' time was given to submit reply to the charge-sheet as well as to the second show-cause notice and secondly, no copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was given to the respondent alongwith the second show-cause notice.
7. From the evidence on the record, I find that Muhammad Islam stated that he was concerned with Industrial Disputes No. 9, l2, 14 and 37 of 1967, especially the Dispute No. 37 in which one of the demands related to hit re- instatement. No evidence in rebuttal was produced. This shows that the disputes concerning the. respondent were ' pending and therefore the application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 was maintainable.
8. The practice of giving only three days' time to reply to the charge- sheet is not only against the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the rules framed by the Road Transport Corporation itself for holding departmental inquiries. Those rules are Exh. P-7 wherein it is mentioned that the charge-sheet alongwith the list of evidence on which the charge is based, should be handed over personally or through a registered letter to the defaulter, giving him 7 to 1(T days* time to submit a list of his defence witnesses and to state as to whether he pleads guilty or not to the charges framed against him.
9. Lastly in the absence of Enquiry Officer's report, the respondent could not have known as to why his plea of not guilty was not accepted. It is possible that if he had known the contents of the Enquiry Officer's report he might have been able to satisfy the District Manager in response to second show-cause notice. Moreover, his appearance before that officer was in thej nature of an appeal' or revision and without Enquiry Officer's report, the rightM of appeal and right of revision would be a mere farce.
Nobody can defend! himself before the appellate or revisional authority without knowing as to what had been found against him. In the case University of Dacca through its Vice Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmed (I), it was held that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the (1) PLD 1965 SC 90 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 power is vested to take such proceedings, for, in such cases this requirement is to be implied into it as the minimum requirement of fairness.
9. In view of the above, I hold that it was the duty of the authority] concerned to supply a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the respondent' in order to enable him to meet the second show-cause notice and to prosecute] the appeal or revision, as the case may be. In the result, I uphold the order of the West Pakistan Industrial Court, Central Zone, Lahore and dismiss the appeal.