' Muhammad Arshad has assailed the soundness of the decision dated 20-10-1994, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala; and in the course of hearing of appeal one Abdul Samad Qureshi Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension), Daska, District Sialkot on 9-1-1996 submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151, C.P.C. The appellant before this Tribunal has not opposed the application in right earnest.
2. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned counsel representing the applicant aforementioned, I have formed an opinion that it would not be just and expedient to dispose of the appeal on merits and more proper course at this juncture would be to advert to the issue of propriety of the move made by Mr. Abdul Samad Qureshi. I have carefully gone through the decision dated 20-10-1994 by the learned Labour Court. Mr. Muhammad Arshad had allegedly embezzled pesticides, belonging to the Department of Agriculture and had been found guilty of the charge and dismissed from service. He agitated his cause before the Departmental Authorities but could not succeed. He then approached the Minister for Agriculture and secured his reinstatement as the Minister was of the view that he could be forgiven with a stern warning especially as he had also deposited the money (in the amount of Rs,20,506.31). He assumed duty on 14-4-1986. Although the intervening period (from 10-8-1983 to 14-4-1986) was to be treated as leave without pay he managed to get even the arrears of emoluments for the said period and such order according to Mr. Abdul Samad Qureshi who then was E.A.D.A., Sheikhupura was passed in his favour under political pressure. This order, however, was subsequently reversed by the D.D.A., Sheikhupura. He had got back the amount he had earlier deposited with the Government treasury: and when the D.D.A. Cancelled the order of the E.A.D.A. He approached the Labour Court with a grievance petition and secured a stay order restraining the recovery. The D.D.A. Had also- directed that the E.A.D.A.
Too should be proceeded against for passing an unlawful order in favour of the delinquent who must also be made to deposit the amount once again.
3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has endorsed the order of the D.D.A. Who according to him was the controlling authority and exercise his powers suo motu in undoing an unlawful act of his subordinate, the E.A.D.A. He has at the same time lashed at the E.A.D.A. Who was understood to have acted in connivance with the delinquent official shielded and enabled him to encash the period for which he had not performed any official duty. In the opinion of the Labour Court, the official had accepted his reinstatement with the condition that he would not lay claim to the salary for the disputed period and even the Minister had not made any specific direction entitling him to receive his emoluments for that period and the order of the E.A.D.A. Passed in favour of the official and in negation of his conditional reinstatement was a nullity in the eye of law. The learned Labour Court has gone to the extent of saying that the official as also the E.A.D.A. Ought not to have been retained in service by reason of their indulgence in collusive and fraudulent deal of embezzlement of Government property causing financial loss to the State and impeding public interest. As it was an internal departmental affair and not an industrial dispute jurisdiction of the Labour Court could not be invoked and the grievance petition was dismissed as being incompetent, fictitious and mischievous.
4. It is, however, to be borne in mind that a very harsh language has been used against the E.A.D.A.
Who is bound to suffer irreversibly in his career. He states that he has already been superannuated on 9-4-1996, but the departmental proceedings initiated against him in view of the observations of the Labour Court are in progress and even his pension case may be prejudiced and jeopardized, although recovery of Rs,26,500 has since been made from accused official. According to the applicant he was willfully kept out of the picture by Muhammad Arshad who wanted to avail of service benefits by concealing material facts and by misleading the Court. I entirely agree with the applicant that the judgment announced by the learned Labour Court is bound to cause an irretrievable injury to his career and he has out ragerously been condemned unheard. He was not a party to the proceedings so that he could defend himself and in a unilateral manner the trial Court has formed an opinion and recorded disparaging and damaging observations and findings against him. Either such 1 remarks ought to be expunged or he be enabled to place before the Court his explanation and defence in the matter.
5. In the famous Gourmani defamation case the defamatory remarks recorded by the Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court against the then Prime Minister Mr. Feroze Khan Noon who was not a party before the High Court had been ordered to be expunged by the Supreme Court. In obedience to the law laid down by the Highest Court of the country and following the rule of common sense and fair-play, I would make a direction that the observations against the applicant recorded in the impugned decision, shall not be taken into account by the Department in proceeding against the E.A.D.A., so long as on re-hearing of the case and on hearing the applicant, the learned lower Court does not again come to the conclusion that the E.A.D.A. Eminently deserves such strictures. I would allow the application: but there will be no use impleading Mr. Abdul Samad Qureshi as a party to the proceedings of the appeal. Real purpose would be served when he is arrayed as party to the proceedings before the lower Court and the matter is heard all over afresh.
I refrain to give any finding as regards competence of the petition before the Labour Court lest such a finding is interpreted as operating against any party to the litigation. I would dispose of the appeal in these terms. The impugned decision stands set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for its redecision on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear in the Court below on 15-5-1996 for further proceedings. The grievance petition by impleading Mr. Abdul Samad Qureshi as a co-respondent shall be submitted in amended form there where after proceedings shall be conducted afresh.