DECISION Muhammad Rafique was employed as a worker in the Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala, He was dismissed from service on 15-5-1976, on the charge of insubordination and riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours in the establishment. He has challenged this order in this petition, filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The alleged occurrence took place on 21-3-1976. The petitioner was working at a machine. Mr. Shaukat Khan, Supervisor found that single yarn was being used. He asked the petitioner as to why the single yarn was being used and as to whether he had come on a walk in the khatta. The answer of the petitioner, given in a rudely 'manner was that the work would be done in the same manner and that the Supervisor was at liberty to do whatever he liked. Mr. Shaukat Khan sent a report to the same effect to the Labour Officer. The report was examined by the Labour Officer who issued a charge-sheet on 21-3-1976. The petitioner was directed to furnish his explanation to Mr Ibrahim Hussain, the Shift Incharge. It is not clear if this charge-sheet (Exh. D-2) was handed over to the petitioner. However, he appeared before Mr. Ibrahim Hussain and pleaded not guilty. On the next day Ibrahim Hussain conducted the inquiry. He recorded the statement of Mr. Shaukat Khan who said that he checked the machine at 7-30 p. m. and found the petitioner absent from his machine.
He said that he came after ten minutes and inquired about the absence. According to him the petitioner answered that he had gone on a walk. He further said that he enquired as to why single yarn was being used. According to him the petitioner became rude. On this evidence the petitioner was held guilty. The Inquiry Officer recommended, that a warning be issued to the petitioner that he should be careful in future. The Labour Officer Mr. Waseem A. Farooqi did not agree with the recommendation. He recommended that in view of the previous conduct severe penalty should be imposed. The Mills Manager, examined the case and the previous record and ordered that a show- cause notice be issued. Accordingly, on 6-4-76 a show cause notice (Exh, D-12) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that he was guilty of misbehaviour previously on four occasions but he was warned only. He was informed that as his previous conduct was bad, therefore, he should explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner denied all the facts mentioned in the show-cause notice. He further stated that he was an office- bearer of the C.B.A., therefore, the permission of the Labour Court under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was necessary before any punishment was imposed on him.
The Mills Manager, found the explanation unsatisfactory. He directed to move the Labour Court in this connection. Information was obtained from the Registrar of Trade Unions about the office- bearers of the union. The list provided by the Registrar did not include the name of the petitioner.
Accordingly, he was dismissed on 15-5-1976.
3. Muhammad Idress (P. W. 1) General Secretary of the Union says that the petitioner was elected as an officer of the Union on 8-4-1976 and his name was approved by the Registrar on 14-7-76.
There is no reason to disbelieve him. The petitioner duly informed the Management on 17-4-76 that he was an officer of the Union, therefore, he could not be punished for misconduct without the permission of the Labour Court because an industrial dispute was pending. It was the duty of the Management to enquire from the Union if he was an officer of the Union. On the other hand, the inquiry was made from the Registrar and as he had not approved the name, therefore the list provided by him did not include the name of the petitioner. He had become the officer of the Union on the day of election. In these circumstance, the permission of the Labour Court was necessary. As this permission was not obtained therefore, the order of dismissal was illegal.
4. On merits I find that the inquiry proceedings were not initiated by the Mills Manager. Mr. Shaukat Khan made a report to Labour Officer who charge-sheeted the petitioner. In fact the report must have been examined by the Mills Manager and he could alone initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner. No effort was made to obtain an explanation on the charge-sheet. The petitioner was asked to explain his position to one Ibrahim Hussain, Shift Incharge. No authority was given to Ibrahim Hussain to hold an inquiry. The proper pro--cedure was that the explanation should have been placed before the Mills Manager who, after applying his mind, could say whether the explanation was satisfactory or not and in case he was of the opinion that the explanation was not satisfactory he was competent to appoint an Inquiry Officer. Neither the report was examined, nor the charge-sheet was framed by the Mills Manager therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated in this case.
5. For the above reasons the petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner with back benefits.