' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that respondent issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 6-2-1990 and also got registered a case against the petitioner and others in Police Station Peoples Colony Faisalabad on 26-1-1990. Petitioner submitted reply of the charge- sheet controverted the allegations levelled in charge-sheet on 18-2-1990. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner vide order, dated 27-3-1990. Petitioner sent notice to the respondent under section 25 of I.R.O. On 28-3-1990 the respondent did not send reply of the notice.
Petitioner filed petition before Punjab Labour Court No, 4 under section 25-A of I.R.O. Of 1969. The respondent submitted reply controverted the allegations levelled in the petition. Learned Punjab Labour Court No,4 accepted the petition of the petitioner vide judgment, dated 30-4-1992. The respondent being aggrieved, filed appeal before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal who accepted the same vide judgment, dated 24-10-1994. Hence the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that judgment of both the Courts below are at variance.
The Punjab Appellate Tribunal reversed the judgment of the Labour Court without adverting to the reasoning of the Labour Court. He further stated that respondent has taken action against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was active member of the Union. He further stated that petitioner submitted application before the Inquiry Officer that the Inquiry Officer has specific malice against the petitioner. He further stated that Muhammad Shahzad Qamar who was the material witness did not produce in the witness-box and the petitioner did not get chance to cross-examine him. He further stated that respondent did not initiate any action against Muhammad Ayub who is also employee of the Department. He further stated that respondent issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner after one month and the Labour Court has given definite finding against the respondent but the Punjab Appellate Tribunal reversed the same without any justification. He further stated that petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case on his appeal vide judgment, dated 15-6-1998. He further stated that action of the respondent is in violation of Article 13 of the Constitution and he relied upon the following judgment; ' 1991 SCMR 209
3. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that Maqbool Ahmad entered appearance as R.W.1.
He further urged that Rana Muhammad Ayub is not employee of the respondent. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. He further urged that Labour Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner that criminal proceedings and domestic proceedings are independent of each other on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1989 SCMR 333 and 1999 SCMR 316. He further stated that petitioner did not file any cross-objection against the aforesaid judgment of the Punjab Appellate Tribunal. Even otherwise, criminal and domestic proceedings be initiated at a time. He relied upon the following judgments; ' 1996 SCMR 315 1993 SCMR 2177 ' He further stated that charge-sheet was not time-barred as P.W.2 Muhammad Sharif informed the shortage on 11-1-1990, 12-1-1990 and 16-1-1990 and the respondent got registered' a case against the petitioner and others on 26-1-1990. He further stated that Rana Muhammad Ayub has given affidavit to the respondent on 23-1-1990 that petitioner has stolen the disputed property and sold the same to Shahzad Qamar and others. Respondent issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 6-2-1990. He further stated that stolen property in question was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner on 3-2-1990. He further stated that the first appellate Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence and this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of fact and he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' 1990 SCMR 1713. 1993 SCMR 511. 1993 SCMR 618. 1980 SCMR 139.
' PLD 1970 SC 39. 1981 SCMR 291/758.
' 1989 SCMR 918. 1980 SCMR 933. PLD 1981 SC 476. 1975 SCMR 46.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings and departmental action can go on side by side and may even end in varying results. I am fortified by the following judgments:-- ' 1989 SCMR 333. 1999 SCMR 316. 1996 SCMR 315.1993 SCMR 2177 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. Similarly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was served on petitioner after one month has no force as the first appellate Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence. Petitioner submitted an application before the Personnal Manager of the respondent requesting for change of the Inquiry Officer has also no force as the first appellate Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence in para.6. This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the Tribunal below as the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Massaduq's case PLD 1973 Lahore 600. The sole question remained to be resolved between the parties whether the inquiry was conducted by the respondents in accordance with the principle laid down. By the superior Court or not. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner sent notice to the respondents under section 25-A, of LR.O. 1969 which reveals that inquiry report was not provided to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared before the Labour Court and stated in his statement in the following terms:--{{URDU TEXT}} ' The respondent failed to cross-examine him on this particular point.
' Therefore, the same is to be accepted by the respondents as the principle laid down in the following judgments:-- ' PLD 1967 Lahore 1138. 1991 SCMR 2300.
' Coupled with the fact that R.W.1 Maqbool Ahmad Alvi admitted in cross-examination in the following terms:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner has taken specific ground by sending notice to the respondent under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 and also taken this ground in para. 3(V). The respondents in reply simply denied this fact. It is settled proposition of law that dismissal of an employee without supplying inquiry report being against principle of natural justice is bad in law. I am fortified by Mehr Suleman's case PLD 1979 Karachi 257 and 1973 SCMR 455 (Punjab Road Transport Corporation's case). The aforesaid proposition was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Mir Muhammad's case (PLD 1981 SC 176) and observed as under:-- "A copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the accused and he was not allowed an opportunity to submit his explanation with regard to the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
' We consider, therefore, that the Service/Tribunal should have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant, leaving it open to the relevant authorities to proceed from the stage from which the error could be corrected; namely, by supplying a copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer to enable the appellant to submit his explanation in regard to the material brought against him during the enquiry proceedings and the opinion formed in respect thereof by the Inquiry Officer, as well as the action proposed to be recommended by the Authorised Officer."
' The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the case and decided the same in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, writ petition is maintainable as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- - ' PLD 1981 SC 246 (Muhammad Sharif's case) PLD 1981 SC 522 (Abdur Rehman Bajwa's case).
' In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is accepted and the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the respondents by supplying a copy of the finding of the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner to enable him to submit his explanation in regard to the material brought against him during the inquiry proceedings and the opinion formed in respect thereof by the Inquiry Officer. The respondents are directed to conclude the inquiry within two months after receiving the order of this Court.