1. This is an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order dated 30th November 1974 passed by the Junior Labour Court, Lyallpur whereby the employer was ordered not to deduct the fine imposed on the employee.
2. The employee Abdul Sattar is a Store Clerk working in Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Lyallpur. On 24th November 1973, Polythene bags weighing 300 Lbs. Were handed over to him. He was directed to deliver them to Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum. He reached Jhelum at midnight and contacted the Chowkidar at gate No.1 of the Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum. The Chowkidar did not allow him to enter into the Mills without prior permission of the Security Officer. At this stage the version of the parties differs. According to the employee, the Polythene bags were entrusted to Chowkidar at gate No.1 and the employee went to see the Security Officer at gate No.2. On the other hand the version of the employer is that the bags were not delivered to the Chowkidar. Whatever the case may be the employee went to gate No. 2, He contacted the Security Officer who informed him that the Polythene bags should be brought to gate No. 2. The employee went back to gate No. 1 and found that the Polythene bags were missing. He made report to the Security Officer. 1n the morning the matter was brought to the notice of Mr. Ijaz Nabi, Deputy General Manager of Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum.
3. He directed the employee to report the matter to the Police. Accordingly, the employee registered a case with Saddar Police Station, Jhelum. Mr. Ijaz Nabi made an inquiry. He reported to Lyallpur Cotton Mills that the Poly--thene bags were lost due to negligence of the employee namely, Abdul Sattar. On receiving this report the employer framed a charge-sheet against the employee in the following words: ---- "You were deputed on 24th November 19773, to deliver to bags of Polythene bags size 17'+22' weighing 300 Lbs. To Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum. It has been intimated that no such goods was delivered by you to this said Mills.
4. From the preliminary investigation report, it is established that you have either misappropriated the goods or lost them though sheer negligence on your part, in that you were wade personally responsible for safe transit and delivery intact to Fauji Textile Mills, which you failed to do, thereby causing a financial loss of Rs. 1,410 to Lyallpur Cotton Mills. Please explain within three days of receipt of this charge-sheet as to why this amount may not be recovered from you."
5. The employee submitted his explanation to the above charge-sheet. He admitted that the said bags were delivered to him. He explained his position in these words:- "When I reached Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum along with above-mentioned bags I informed the Chowkidar, who was at the gate of the Mills about the said articles. The Chowkidar at the gate advised me to seek prior permission of the Security Officer to carry the, bags into the Mills. I went to the Security Officer and the bags were left in the custody of the Chowkidar. I contacted the security Officer of Fauji Textile Mills through the Chowkidar who was deputed at the gate No. 2 of the Mills.
6. The Chowkidar told me to bring the bags into the Mills but when I went back to collect the bags from gate No.1, I found the bags were missing. The matter was reported to the Police which is still under consideration with Police Saddar, Jhelum."
7. It appears that this explanation was found unsatisfactory by the employer. He passed an order on 20th February 1974, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,410 being the cost of the bags in instalments. In this order the inquiry made at the Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum by Mr. Ijaz Nabi was taken into considera-- tion and on the basis of that inquiry the fine was imposed upon the employee. After serving a grievance notice on the employers the employee tiled a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Junior Labour Court accepting the petition set aside the order of the employer.
8. In appeal the following to points were raised:
(1) That the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
(2) The employer was justified to impose a fine after proper inquiry.
9. On the first point the argument on behalf of the employer was that no guaranteed or secured right of the employee was infringed by imposing a fine and so the petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969 was not maintainable. The argument is without force. It is the guaranteed right of every employee to receive wages and if a part or whole of the wages are deducted by way of fine a guaranteed right is infringed. I hold that the petition is maintainable under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Labour Court has jurisdiction to look into the matter for adjudicating and determining a grievence of the employee.
10. The next question is whether the employer was justified to impose a fine udder the circumstances given above. An employer is entitled to impose a fine for the loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody. "The question to be determined by the employer in this case was whether the loss occurred due to negligence of the employee. The proper procedure for the employer was to appoint an Inquiry Officer for conducting the inquiry and this procedure had to be adopted after a charge-sheet has been framed against the employee. In this case a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Mr. Ijaz Nabi, Deputy General Manager of Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum. He cannot be termed as Inquiry Officer. It was a discreet inquiry, and its purpose was whether the employee should be charge-sheeted or not. It was on the basis of this report that the charge-sheet was framed. A reply to the charge-sheet was furnished by the employee. If the employer found that the explanation was unsatisfactory, it was necessary for the employer to appoint an Inquiry Officer and the said Inquiry Officer must have given a finding as to whether loss was due to negligence of the employee, it may be noted the explanation of the employee was that he kept goods in the custody of the Chowkidar at gate No.1 and after half an hour when he returned after seeing, the Security Officer, he found that the goods were missing. It is an admitted fact that one Muhammad Aslam was the Chow--kidar at gate No. 1. It is further admitted that after incident, on the next Gay, he absented himself from duty. He remained absent for more than ten flays and so his services were terminated by the Fauji Textile Mills. These facts were to be taken into consideration by the Inquire Officer. This pro--cedure was not adopted by the employer. On the other hand he hastened to give a final verdict and used the inquiry made by Mr. Ijaz Nabi as evidence against the employee. This procedure violates against the natural justice. Moreover, the payment of Wages Rules, 1960 provides a set procedure in imposing a fine and reductions in Rule 14 which is as under: --- "Any person desiring to impose fine on an employed person or to make deduction for damage or loss shall explain personally to the said person the at or omission, or damage or loss, in respect of which the fine or deduction is proposed to be imposed, and the amount of the fine or deduction which is proposed to impose, and shall hear his explanation in the presence of at least one other person."
11. The essential ingredients of the above rule are that the employer has to explain personally to the employee the at or omission or damage or loss in respect of which the fine is proposed to be imposed and secondly, the explana--tion of the employee must be heard in presence of at least one other person. These formalities were not observed in this case, I am, therefore, of the view that, the fine imposed in this case was not ordered after a proper inquiry there--fore, t. Junior Labour Court was justified to set aside the order of the employer.
12. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.