' By this judgment are intended to be disposed of two Appeals Nos.10 and 11 of 1993, one filed by Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation against Muhammad Saleem, and the other, with the reverse title. By a judgment delivered on 21-11-1992, learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore (Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu) had ordered reinstatement ' of Mr. Muhammad Saleem in service, but without back benefits, to which he has laid claim. P.T.D.C. Seeks to set aside the order of reinstatement of Muhammad Saleem. P.T.D.C., through a counsel, while Muhammad Saleem, in person, made their submissions. In the course of this judgment. I would be making reference to the P.T.D.C. As appellant and Muhammad Saleem as respondent.
2. Muhammad Saleem was, on 10-7-1971, recruited as clerk in the establishment of the P.T.D.C. At Karachi. He became Senior Accounts Clerk, and was later, on 8-10-1974, promoted as assistant. He was found to have indulged in embezzlement/misappropriation of funds, and was charge-sheeted on 25-11-1975 (Exhs. P-5 and P-6). An enquiry was initiated against him. He was found guilty and dismissed from service, by an order dated 24-8-1978 (Exh.P.8). Dismissal order was challenged by the respondent before Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore. Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Presiding Officer, in dealing with a preliminary objection, on 27-5-1980, held (at pages 111 to 117 of the file of the Labour Court) that the P.T.D.C. Was a limited company and not a statutory corporation. Final judgment was rendered by his successor, Ch. Bashir Ahmad, on 31-3-1981 (pages 227 to 247). Show-cause notice/charge-sheet was held to be time-barred, and the dismissal order, on that short ground, was set aside. Reinstatement of the employee was ordered, but back benefits were not granted.
Both the parties came up in appeal before this Tribunal. The two appeals were dismissed on 4-11- 1981 (pages 257 to 259). Muhammad Saleem filed a writ petition ((No, 696 of 1983), which was disposed of as withdrawn on 12-3-1983 (page 261). The employee sought clarification from this Tribunal and in that behalf an order was rendered on 3-4-1983 (page 263/277, Exh.R-15). It was opined that for holding of enquiry afresh against the official, rescission of his dismissal order, earlier passed against him, was not necessary. Both sides approached the honourable High Court by filing writ petitions. The .Case was remanded to this Tribunal for redecision; holding that Standing Order 15(4), having been amended, after the alleged misconduct on the part of the employee it had no retrospective effect and the charge-sheet could not be treated as time-barred. Labour Tribunal gave its verdict on 23-1-1988 (Exh. R-16, pages 279 to 283). Labour Court's decision dated 31-3-1981, reinstating the official in service was set aside, on acceptance of appeal of the P.T.D.C. Muhammad Saleem's appeal claiming back benefits was dismissed. It was:directed that enquiry report would be recorded afresh, on taking down the statement of the accused official and his evidence in defence, if he wished to adduce any. One Mr. Zubair, a witness of the prosecution, could not probably be cross-examined, and his statement, therefore, was ordered to be excluded from consideration.
3. Exh. P.10 (at pages 153 to 161) is the enquiry report that was recorded by Beg M. Asif Mirza, the Enquiry Officer, who had conducted the enquiry in the beginning as well. He stuck to the conclusion that charge at Item No,5(ii) only was proved against the official. Thereupon, a dismissal order (Exh.
P-11, at page 163) was passed on 24-2-1988 against Mr. Muhammad Saleem.
4. Prior to this development, Muhammad Saleem had gone up to the High Court in a Writ Petition (No, 1432 of 1983). It was dismissed with costs of Rs,500 by Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman on 25-1- 1988 (Exh.P-9 pages 139 to 151). The Honourable Judge of the High Court did not agree with this Tribunal's observation that reinstatement of the official was not to necessarily precede the act of holding a fresh enquiry against him. The employer had also submitted a C.M. (No,855/87) for recalling the order dated.27-4-1983, which was made to the effect that prima facie no question of holding second enquiry arose, unless and until the order of dismissal of the employee was set aside.
5. Writ petition filed by Muhammad Saleem, having failed, the employer re-affirmed the original order dated 24-8-1978, dismissing Muhammad Saleem from service. It was passed on 24-2-1988 (Exh. P-11, at page 163). Challenging this order, Muhammad Saleem served on the employer a grievance notice on 3-3-1988 (Exh. P.12). Grievance . Petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was filed in Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore, on 27-3-1988. The learned Labour Court accepted the aforementioned petition, vide impugned judgment dated 21-11-1992.
6. I have undertaken a thorough study of this judgment, as also of the one delivered by the Labour Court (presided over by Ch. Bashir Ahmad) on 31-3-1981. Judgment rendered by the Honourable High Court Judge on 25-1-1988 has also carefully been gone through, as it will have direct impact on the pleas taken up by Mr. Muhammad Saleem, and the submissions made by the P.T.D.C. Legible copies of these judgments are in existence on the file of the appeal preferred by the P.T.D.C.
Muhammad Saleem also makes mention of a grievance petition, Which he had filed against the establishment and had succeeded in securing promotion. This is not available on record. There have been many rounds of litigation, right up to the Honourable High Court; and the respondent has not been tired of this unending litigation; he has rather been relishing all that approaching the Labour Court, the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, again and again.
7. He appears to have even been deriving enjoyment in dragging his ' employer into Courts over an unusually prolonged spell, although most of the contentions put forth by him in challenging the mode of enquiry were found to be without force by the competent forum fifteen years ago, when Labour Court No,2, Lahore announced its decision on 31-3-1981. On a purely technical ground he was afforded the relief of his re-instatement in service. The charge-sheet, was treated to be time- barred, although all the other contentions enumerated as (a) to (g) at page 3 of the judgment, excepting the only one aforementioned ground, were found to be without substance. Charge- sheet too subsequently was held by the High Court to be within time, with the result that the official met failure in this appellate forum, his appeal having been dismissed and that of the Corporation having been accepted on 23-1-1983 by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (Exh. R-16). In their reply, submitted in response to Mr. Muhammad Saleem's application under section 151, C.P.C. For dismissal of appeal, filed against him, the P.T.D.C. Authorities have narrated in detail the manner in which this litigation has been initiated and pursued by Mr. Muhammad Saleem. The honourable Judge of the High Court, Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, in the course of his judgment dated 25-1-1988., has also highlighted the conduct of the official and painted the same in no charming colours. He has mostly been disassociating himself with the process set in motion to make a probe into the alleged misconducr on his part. When he started playing hide-and-seek with the exercise, the Enquiry Office had no option but to proceed ex parte against him. He Was even paid T.A, D.A. And sanctioned leave for travelling from Islamabad to Lahore, wherein the premises of the Faletti's Hotel the enquiry had to take place, but he persisted in his uncooperative and hostile attitude. It has pertinently been remarked by the learned Judge, at page 4 of his judgment, that Mr, Saleem had been taking the litigation from one Court to another, in order only to grab monetary benefits by pressurizing the employer. He was summoned repeatedly to appear in the enquiry but he purposely absented himself. He would quit the office of the Enquiry Officer, by leaving often an application for leave. He would even leave a message that he would make his statement and lead evidence in defence later. Then he would send a telegram. He dubbed the enquiry as a mala fide one, and used indecent language in his despatches. Throughout his service and in enquiry proceedings he did not behave, and his conduct, unbecoming of a gentleman and a law-abiding person in the opinion of the honourable Judge, disentitled him to seek an equitable relief from the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. There cannot be two opinions about the fact that Mr, Saleem was not a docile and disciplined but was a defiant and disobedient official, with a sposition absolutely insolent and rebellious. He would consciously make a display of his insulting and obnoxious posture. Even in the course of arguments, in this Court, he had been jeering and joking and not allowing the learned counsel for the other side to proceed with his arguments. It was unfortunate indeed. Had he not, in a deliberate manner, or by dint of his repulsive nature, caused constant offensive, his superiors, I am sure, might have excused his irregularities and accepted him once again in the fold of their establishment. But how could they put up with the intolerant and disgusting attitude exhibited by him throughout his career.
9. In so far as the legal aspects of the misconduct alleged against him are concerned, I am afraid, he could not escape from the adverse ,consequences thereof. He forged the signatures of his officer, with a view to draw overtime charges for the month of February, 1975, in the amount of Rs, 606.96, which amount was not as meagre then, as it is today. But even if the same was a small sum, the event sufficiently reflected criminal thinking and fraudulent way of working of the official.
For doing a bad thing, he could go to any extent, and could make a manipulation and resort even to forgery. It was also a penal act and he could criminally be prosecuted and punished, for the offence.
10. The so-called defects in the enquiry alleged by him were all spurned a baseless and untenable by the learned Labour Court, in the judgment dated Lahore, 31-3-1981. The honourable Judge of the High Court has, towards the end of his judgment dated 25-1-1988, observed in a categorical manner that the enquiry had been completed ex parte after providing to the official ample opportunity and could no more be subjected to criticism and put to challenge, and the employer was at liberty to proceed and pass an order on the basis of the report of enquiry. Even the learned Labour Court, having finally expressed itself in favour of the official, on 21-11-1992, has in so many words, said that neither the charge-sheet could be termed as time-barred, nor could it be alleged that the official had not been afforded adequate opportunity to take part in the enquiry proceedings. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court found himself inclined to be lenient towards the petitioner before him, for the .Simple reason that only one out of so many charges had been proved against him in the enquiry and he deserved to be awarded not that severe penalty of dismissal from service but merited re-instatement. This is no argument and would not afford any valid premises for acceptance of the grievance petition of the aggrieved official. Again, the finding recorded to the effect that the competent Authority had not passed the order of the official's dismissal from service is obviously erroneous. When the charge stood established, it was heinous in nature, and the official was found not to be believing in scruples and in service discipline, and when seldom and at leisure he attended to his duty, he did not justify his retention in service, considered from any angle. It is trying to be too technical if it is said that the dismissal order was not signed by the appointing authority. The final order dated 24-2-1988, re-affirming the earlier order of dismissal dated 24-8-1978 (Exh.P.11), which, in ground (c) of memorandum of appeal filed by the P.T.D.C., has, in ink, been 're-touched' and made to read as Exh. R-11, leaves no doubt about the fact that the order had been issued with the approval of the competent Authority. It was signed by the Deputy Manager (Personnel) of the office of the P.T.D.C., Islamabad. Was it not enough and could any officer higher in status differ with that? I would not accord any importance to the so-called deficiency or defect inherent in the ultimate order, taken into account by the learned lower Court, since, if at all it was 2 lapse, it was of wholly trivial nature having no bearing on the result of enquiry.
11. The official could, in no manner, be permitted to draw emoluments for the period, he had not been serving the P.T.D.C., but had been moving about in, Courts and on roads. His Lordship of the High Court had recorded statement of Muhammad Saleem, on 25-1-1988, which was to the effect that he had obtained licence for practising as a lawyer from Punjab Bar Council in 1979. It was suspended in 1981, but it was got renewed in 1983. The Honourable High Court had not allowed back benefits to him, as he had been engaged in legal profession, ever since 1979. The High Court judgment dated 25-1-1988 would indeed clinch the issue finally in almost all its aspects, and enquiry report, having gone against the official, entailing his dismissal from service, he could neither claim reinstatement in service, nor back benefits for the past period.
12. I would allow the appeal filed by the P.T.D.C., and dismiss the one lodged by Mr. Muhammad Saleem, making no order as to costs of litigation throughout.