DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, allowing the petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 and directing reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits.
2. The respondent was working as Flight Steward on P.IA. Flight from Karachi to London on 20-5- 1990. He was arrested from his hotel in London on the charge of smuggling 2.6 KG of Heroin. On May 25, 1992 the P.IA. By a letter terminated the services of the respondent while the respondent was under arrest in London. This letter of termination was served on the wife of the respondent. The respondent was found to be not guilty by Isleworth Crown Court on 4-9-1992 and the Crown Court Certificate of Acquittal was faxed from London to P.I.A. The respondent was not provided with any return ticket by the P.I.A. And he applied to the Flight Service Department P.IA. Karachi Airport stating that he had been involved in a false case and he should, therefore, be reinstated in service and order of his termination may be withdrawn. He was, however, informed by P.IA. In their reply, dated 29-3-1993 that his request had not been acceded to by the Management. He, accordingly, served the P.I.A. Corporation with the grievance notice on April 27, 1993. He, thereafter, filed his petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court on 26-7-1993.
3. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination being for misconduct on account of the alleged smuggling of heroin it could not be effected under Standing Order 12(1) as 'termination simpliciter'. The grievance petition was, accordingly, allowed and the P.I.A. Corporation were directed to reinstate the respondent in service within one month from the date of the order with back benefits. Against this order the P.IA. Corporation has preferred this appeal.
4. The order of termination, dated May 25, 1992, sent by Registered Post to the respondent on his address at Gulshan-e-Iqbal Society, Karachi, while he himself was known to be under arrest in London reads as under:-- "Since you are allegedly involved in aforementioned offence and under detention with the authorities concerned, the Management has, therefore, decided to terminate your services with immediate effect. Accordingly your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect with one month's wages in lieu of notice period under Standing Order 12(1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial' Employment Standing Orders, 1968."
' This termination, which is mentioned as termination simpliciter shows the reason or termination to be allegation of involvement in the offence of smuggling of heroin recovered from him at Hotel Metropol, London on 22-5-1992. The question then arises whether the services of the respondent could be terminated under Standing Order 12(1). Standing Order 12(1) reads as under:-- "For terminating employment of a permanent workman, for any reason other than misconduct, one month's notice shall be given either by the employer or the workman. One month's wages calculated on the basis of average wages earned by the workman during the last three months shall be paid in lieu of notice."
' Standing Order 12 (1) is clearly applicable to cases where the termination is not for any misconduct but is without stigma for other reasons such as re-organization or retrenchment etc. It is clearly mentioned in this Standing Order that this order does not apply to termination for reason of misconduct, For such cases Standing Order 15 has been provided. Under Standing Order 15(4) no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer has to be taken in every case of dismissal and a person has to be charge-sheeted and subjected to an independent domestic enquiry. It has been held that under Standing Order 15(4) giving of charge-sheet is mandatory and ordinarily if the person is found guilty he should be given copy of Enquiry Report and served' with the second show-cause notice. Thus, when an employee commits fraud or dishonesty by smuggling heroin while on duty on the flight he commits an act of misconduct and for this act of misconduct his services should not be terminated by one month's notice or pay in. Lieu of notice when the respondent was under arrest undergoing a trial and such notice was never served upon him.
5. In the case of Glaxo Laboratories (Pak.) Ltd. v. Pakistan 1962 PLC 362 it was held by Full Bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan, per SA. Rahman, CJ. That: "'termination' of services of workman 'specifically' for misconduct "disobedience of orders"--- Employer, however, paying one month's salary in lieu of notice in terms of agreement with worker-- -Such payment does not change original reason for termination of service---Misconduct not being lawfully established, reinstatement of worker held proper."
' In the case of United Bank Limited v. Muhammad Ali reported in 1982 PLC 1050 it was held that: "Since stigma of employment had been laid against the respondent the giving of charge-sheet making enquiry and observation of other legal formalities were absolutely necessary. In this case services of the respondent were terminated on the plea that the Bank had lost trust and confidence, therefore, it was not possible to retain him in employment however neither the respondent was charge-sheeted nor any enquiry was held. Respondent's reinstatement with back benefits were held to be rightly ordered."
' In the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Haleem Chohan 1989 PLC 17 it was held by Lehrasap Khan, J. That: "termination of service of bank employee on account of his involvement in Criminal Cases but giving the termination the colour of simpliciter termination actually amounted to discharge for misconduct which could only be ordered after undergoing the prescribed formalities. The decision in Glaxo Laboratories case reported in PLD 1962 SC 60, was relied upon."
' In the case of Vice-President (Operations) Security and Management (Pvt.) Limited v. Shahjehan Khan reported in 1992 PLC (Labour) 546 it was held by Justice Abdul Rehman Khan that: "Where employee was removed from service without issuing him any show-cause notice, charge- sheet or held any enquiry against him-removal of employee from service being with stigma and disgrace, the case would be covered by Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Procedure provided for in Standing Order 15(4) having not been adopted by employer in removing employee from service, the order was bad in law."
6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the management has been given the option to either proceed under Standing Order 12 for terminating the services of the the employee after giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice or to proceed under Standing Order 15 dismissing him without payment of compensation. I cannot agree with this contention when Standing Order 12 itself provide that it is not applicable where the employee has to be terminated for some stigma or misconduct. In that case only Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable and Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is mandatory.
7. The termination order of the respondent, while in London Jail, three days after his arrest, without any show-cause notice, charge sheet or enquiry would, therefore, be bad in law and Standing Order 12 (1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, is clearly not applicable in his case. The Order of the Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal of the P.I.A. Corporation is dismissed.