1. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the District Manager, G. T. S., Lyallpur, filed an application under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In that petition Mr. Muhammad Azam, Conductor (C. D-132) was represented by Mr. Nazir Ahmed Naz. Both the parties led their evidence.
2. On perusal of this evidence I came to the conclusion that the Management has proceeded bona fide against the respondent. Evidence produced before me was not enough to come to the conclusion that said Muhammad Azam Conductor has become guilty of a misconduct, therefore my order was to the effect "that Management is directed to follow proper and legal procedure of inquiry in which the respondent will be given full opportunity to defend himself. I would have hesitated to have given this finding i.e. To be held guilty of a mis--conduct. In my opinion it is not required by the provision of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the reason that while giving permission if it is held that one is guilty of a misconduct and if after the permission he is actually dismissed he loses right to prefer an application to the Junior Labour Court or to send a grievance notice to the Management and to his right of appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to the Labour Court. Intention of section 47, in my opinion is only to seethe bona fide of the Manage--ment to punish a worker who is concerned in any dispute with the Manage--ment but now the case has been remanded back by the Hon'able Appellate Tribunal with a direction to give my finding as to whether Mr. Muhammad Azam is guilty of a misconduct or not.
3. I have hard the parties at length. Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz has contended that contrary to the direction of this Court no inquiry was held by the Management and relying upon inquiries, made earlier to this petition, under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Muhammad Azam Anjum (C D-132) was dismissed from service. He has relied upon different rulings such as 1972 PLC 464 and says that no copies statements of summary inquiry were supplied to the workman. No indepen--dent witness such as passenger concerned was produced in the inquiry V.
4. Management did not file its documents with this petition, under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which is very essential as is required under Order XIII, rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. Petition is not verified as is required under Order VI, rule 15. In answer to these arguments Ch. Muhammad Bashir, A. T. M., on behalf of the G. T. S, has sufficed it to say that inquiry had already been held and there was no need to hold any other inquiry as directed by this Court.
5. By the arguments of Mr. Nazir Ahmed Naz, to which the other party has no answer I have come to the conclusion that the inquiry was defective and for this reason respondent cannot be held to be guilty of a misconduct. He will, therefore, remain re-instated as is ordered by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal.