DECISION This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad dated the 17th of November 1973. The respondent and his Representative are absent. A Registered Notice was sent on the 13th of April 1974. It is now over a month that the notice was issued of today's date to the respondent. So was the appellant. Mr. Sirajul Haq in response to the notice is present. I will presume that the respondent has also received the notice.
2. I have heard Mr. Sirajul Haq for the appellant. The learned Court has rightly relied on the Supreme Court decision reported in 1973 SCMR 455. It was also a case of Transport. The respondent was charge- sheeted for very serious offence. He is said to have changed the Gear-Box. It has been held in that case by the Supreme Court that two things are necessary namely (1) supply of Enquiry Officer's Report, and
(2) Second show-cause Notice. He has no doubt filed an appeal to the Higher Authorities against his dismissal which is said to have been dismissed. It is true the Driver was heard personally by the District Manager and the District Manager did not accept the plea and dismissed him on 28-10- 1967. He did not accept the plea of Driver Hussain Bakhsh that Mechanic Abdul Khaliq alongwith Conductor Mohammad Jamil had left when the bus broke down on the way. The District Manager did not accept this plea on the ground that this was not mentioned during the course of Enquiry. All the same personal hearing cannot take the place of Enquiry Officer's Report and the failure to supply Enquiry Officer's Report was a serious lacuna. The Driver in the absence of the Enquiry Officer's Report did not know the grounds on which the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty. In these circumstances I would set aside the Award to this extent that the respondent should be re-instated and paid Rs. 200 as cost if he had not already been paid. The respondent is to be supplied a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report and given a second show-cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed. As it is a very old case the respondent having been dismissed in 1967, the appellant must expedite the hearing. Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi states that the Department would take not more than one week to comply with the directions of this Court in respect of Enquiry Officer's Report and second show-cause notice. Thereafter it should not take more than two weeks time to complete the proceedings. Mr. Sirajul Haq undertakes to supply copy of this order to the respondent. Mr. Siraj states that the respondent is already in service with the Sind University at Hyderabad. 1974 PLC 180(1) [Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind] Fresent: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal Messrs COMMERCE BANK Ltd., KARACHI versus AHMED ALI M. I. MEMON , heard on 9th May 1974. Industrial dispute-- ------ Re-instatement -- Back benefits -- Dismissal due to misconduct -- Enquiry report and second show-cause notice not supplied--Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside without back benefits--Back benefits, held, to depend upon fresh inquiry and departmental proceedings-- Management directed to hold fresh inquiry and proceedings within two weeks failing which, without good reasons, accused worker to be re-instated with back benefits, [p. 180]/I Farooq A.
Ghani for Appellant. Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th May 1974. Decision This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dated the 18th of January 1974, whereby the learned Court ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with back benefits for five months. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry was not fair though the respondent admitted to have participated in the inquiry and signed every page of the proceeding before the Inquiry Officer. He also admitted to have received charge- sheet and reply filed thereto. He was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of money amounting to Rs. 3,000. He paid half of the amount. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Inquiry was not fair. All that can be said is that he was not supplied the second show-cause notice and the Enquiry Officer's Report.
2. In these circumstances I would modify the Award of the learned Labour Court and order the appellant to pay Rs. 100 as cost to Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi within one week. The appellant to supply copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report also within a week and give a second show- cause notice also at the same time and hold the Inquiry within two weeks. In case the Inquiry is not held without any good reason within two weeks the respondent would be entitled to be re-instated with back benefits as ordered by the learned Court. 1975 PLC 180(2) [Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind] Present: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal Messrs .BAHAR SILK MILLS, KARACHI versus IKRAM ALI , heard on 10th May 1974. Iadostrial diapnte-- ___ Re-instatement--Back benefits--Enquiry report's copy not supplied and no second show-cause notice given--Back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, not upheld -- Worker allowed only compensation of Rs. I0O as cost --Entitlement to back benefits, held, would depend upon result of fresh proceedings which if not taken up within two weeks, worker to get all benefits, [p. 1811/4 1973 SCMR 455/o/. Mohammad Khurshid Siddiqul for Appellant. Syed Mumtazuddin for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th May 1974.
Decision This is an appeal against an Award dated the 12th of February, 1974 wherein the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, has re-instated the respondent with full back benefits. The only point that requires consideration in this case is as to whether in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Supreme Court Monthly Review, 1973, page 455 the respondent would be entitled to back benefits and re-instatement only or to copy of the Enquiry Report and second show-cause notice. In the light of the Supreme Court Authority I would modify the Award of the learned Court and order the appellant to pay Rs. I0O as cost to Mr. Mumtazuddin within a week and also supply copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to the respondent and give a second show- cause notice.
2. In the circumstances of this case, it would not be necessary to supply copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses to the respondent as he has not cross-examined and he knows already the contents of their statements. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent for not supplying the statements of the witnesses appearing against him. In case the appellant does not proceed with the matter within 2 weeks the respondent will be entitled to back benefits also as ordered by the Court. Mr. Khursheed is directed to co-operate.