' By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of the appeal, as also the revision petition, captioned above, the facts of the two cases being common.
' Nazir Ahmad filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court at Multan, and the same was decided in his favour on 2-5-1996. According to him, he was employed by the Three Star Hosiery Mills, Industrial Estate, Multan, as helper, on 8-11- 1990, but without any appointment order in writing. On 19-2-1991, all of a sudden, he was stopped at the gate and his entry into the interior was blocked. The management had allegedly turned hostile towards him, as he had engaged himself in trade union activities and had also acted in unison or in collusion with Islam-ud-Din and Murid Hussain, having instituted cases against the establishment. He reported the matter to the Labour Department; and by reason of the good gesture made by the department, two officers of the establishment, Mr. Jamil Shah and Mr. Jamil Chohan, were asked to take him back on duty, but the aforesaid desire or direction was not fulfilled, with the result that he did not succeed in having his reinstatement in service.
3. According to the Mill Manager, Nazir Ahmad had been recruited as godown worker, temporarily, and on account of his absence from duty, on 18-2-1991, his services were dispensed with, as he had not completed the probationary period, as also the minimum stay in service, envisaged by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. No disciplinary proceedings formally were initiated against him. It was denied that he had been made to sign two blank papers, at the time of his entry into service. To that effect an allegation had been made by the employee.
4. Ex parte proceedings were taken against the establishment by the Labour Court; and the evidence led by Nazir Ahmad remained un-rebutted. Grievance notice, as also the grievance petition, according to the establishment, were barred by the law of limitation.
5. In his familiar way, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Mr. Ghulam Abbas Khan, observed, "An assessm ent of the fact so the case takes me to the conclusion that the petitioner's contention is sound". On saying so, as was usual with the learned Judge, he started advancing arguments himself in favour of the employee and picked up as many points as possible to favour him. Copies of the application made by Nazir Ahmad to the Labour Department locally were tendered as Exhs.P-1 to P-3. Messrs Jamil Shah and Jamil Chohan of the Establishment or the Officers of the Labour Department, Multan, who has figured in the picture, have not been. Examined as witnesses by Nazir Ahmad and the plea taken up by Nazir Ahmad to the effect that even the Labour Department had desired and directed his reinstatement in service remains only an oral assertion and the application Exhs.P-1 to P-3 have to be taken to be a one-sided affair.
6. Learned lower Court has jumped to the conclusion that no order of appointment or one of termination of services of Nazir Ahmad having been rendered in writing, provisions of Standing Order 2-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 have been violated and mala fides on the part of the establishment have become manifest. One Mr. Sardar Muhammad, Godown Incharge, has appeared as a witness for the establishment, but the learned Court below has accorded no importance to his testimony, saying that the same cannot safely be relied upon, as he has not pin-pointed exact date of appointment of the employee and has generally said that he had been recruited in the beginning of 1991.
Attention of the Court has, however, been drawn by the appellant, respondent before the Labour Court, to the entries in the attendance register, Exhs.R-1 to R-3 for the months of February and January, 1991, and December, 1990, according to which, Nazir Ahmad had, beyond any manner of doubt, started during his duty on 8-1-1991 and this was stopped on 18-2-1991. Nazir Ahmad got payment as daily-wager, for the month of January, as per Exhs.R-5 and R-6, in the amount of Rs,224.25 and Rs,493.20 and from 1-2-1991 to 15-2-1991 in the sum of Rs,458.35, as per Exh.R-7, besides Rs,79 for 16th to 18th of February, 1991 (two days), as per Exh.R-4. The documents aforesaid will leave little doubt, as already said, about Nazir Ahmad having remained in service of the establishment from 8-1-1991 to 18-2-1991. Thus, he had not stayed there for the minimum period of three months even; and it was not incumbent upon the establishment to have served him with a show-cause notice/charge-sheet or to have made him face an inquiry and to have terminated his services by an order in writing. This is what is maintained by the establishment, as appellant before this forum, and as respondent before the learned Labour Court.
7. The grievance notice Exh.P-4 was issued on 2-5-1991, and was stated, as per Exh.P-6, to have been delivered to the addressee on 7-5-1991. It was averred by the establishment that he had been appointed (on 8-1-1991) as godown-keeper and not as helper. The establishment, as stated in the reply, Exh.P-6, to the grievance notice, could dispense with the services of the employee without giving any reasons; but Nazir Ahmad, as employee, alongwith another companion, Ghulam Hussain, left the service suo motu on 18-2-1991. Performance of Nazir Ahmad was described to be unsatisfactory, in the reply dated 20-5-1991, Exh.P-6. The allegation of Nazir Ahmad, having been made to sign certain blank paper, was given a lie to by the establishment in the reply Exh.P-6 Nazir Ahmad having stopped doing his duty or his services having been dispensed with, on 18-2-1991, the grievance notice Exh. P-4, having been issued on 2-5-1991, was within time. Similarly, the grievance petition filed by him on 30.6.1991 must also be taken to be within time. Objection raised in that behalf by the establishment are without force and are turned down.
8. The finding recorded by the learned lower Court to the effect that it was a permanent post, against which Nazir Ahmad had been employed and he had attained the status of a permanent workman, under the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, cannot possibly be endorsed, being based on no evidentiary material available on record. The oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties in the lower Court leads to an inescapable inference that Nazir Ahmad had remained with the hosiery for a period of less than two months even, from 8-1- 1991 to 18-2-1991, and could not be regarded as a permanent workman, entitled to the safeguards provided by the Labour Laws. I have, therefore, no option but to set aside the impugned judgment rendered by the Labour Court on 2-5-1996 and to accept the appeal filed by the establishment on 22-5-1996.
9. A few weeks after the appeal was filed by the establishment the Manager of the Three Star Hosiery Mills, Industrial Estate, Multan, its Officers, Mian Rashid Ahmad and Mr. Taskeen Javed, Managing Director and Personnel Manager, respectively, preferred a revision petition, with a request that the proceedings entertained by the Labour Court, Multan, under section 25-A(8) and (9), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, summoning the revision-petitioners, be set aside and, during the pendency of the revision petition, be stayed. Nazir Ahmad had submitted a complaint in the Labour Court, with a request that Mian Rashid Ahmad and Mr. Taskeen Javed be summoned in the Court and dealt with and punished in accordance with law, as they had deliberately floated the orders of the Court and brought into ridicule the authority of the Court. The Labour Court, Multan had delivered a decision against the establishment and in favour of Nazir Ahmad on 2-5-1996 and had ordered his reinstatement in service and also payment of back benefits in entirety. Nazir Ahmad claims to have approached the management, with a prayer that the aforesaid decision dated 2-5-1996 of the Labour Court be acted upon. Application in that behalf was made to the General Manager on 6-5-1996, and twice had Nazir Ahmad as he claims, met Mr. Taskeen Javed, Factory Manager as well, but with no favourable response. Petitioner No,2 had allegedly induced petitioner No,1 to disobey the direction of the Labour Court. Nazir Ahmad, once again, on 26-5-1996, despatched an application to the Managing Director, in an effort to resume duty, but the management cared a fig for the same. Nazir Ahmad alleged that he was not permitted to cross the main case of the mill for assuming duty.
10. It is to be noted while announcing the decision dated 2-5-1996, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Multan had ordered the establishment to make payment of all the back benefits, within thirty days. Learned counsel for the establishment urges that it was an absolutely unlawful direction. The establishment had a right to come-up in appeal, within thirty days, to the higher forum. It is a matter of common experience that it takes time for a party to be litigation to get certified copy of the judgment, and within thirty days further, if application for obtaining the copy has been made on the day of announcement of the decision, the aggrieved party has a right to file an appeal before this Tribunal. By binding down the establishment to make payment of the back benefits within thirty days, the Labour Court had made a bid to impose a restriction upon the aforesaid entitlement of the aggrieved party, available under section 37(3), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
11. The learned Labour Court, on entertaining the complaint, on 4-6-1996, had issued pre-admission notice to be persons arrayed as accused or respondents there. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the revisions-petitioners that provisions of section 200, Cr.P.C. Have not been kept in view by the Labour Court. Submission is that preliminary evidence of the complainant has not been recorded and no speaking order has been passed by the Court below in coming to the conclusion that there was prima facie substance in the allegations made and in the complaint to be entertained. This contention has been repelled by the learned counsel for the employee, respondent before this Tribunal, and it has been submitted that procedure contemplated by the Criminal Procedure Code would not strictly apply to the proceedings before Labour Forums, and it is a matter of common knowledge and experience that Labour Courts and Labour Tribunal would enter upon these proceedings of quasi criminal nature, without observing any formality, and show- cause notices to those arrayed as respondents in the contempt matters are issued in routine.
12. In any case, as the Labour Court's decision dated 2-5-1996 has been rescinded by this Court, and earlier, on entertaining the appeal, preferred by the establishment, operation for this decision had been suspended, on 22-5-1996, they would arise no occasion for proceeding against the nominated contemners and punishing them for the alleged violation of the Labour Court's orders, on their part. In summoning the revision-petitioners, respondents before the Labour Court, as contemnors, the learned lower Court appears to have committed a material irreglarity, calling for interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. I would accept the revision petition, although with no order as to costs.
Appeal and .