' This is an appeal against the decision dated 21-2.1977 of Punjab Labour Court No, 3 (Now No, 4), Faisalabad.
2. Liaqat Ali, respondent was employed as a worker in Crescent Jute Products Limited. One Salamat Ali made a report to the Management that he was beaten up by four other workers on 19 4-1976 at 10-00 p. m. In the factory premises during the working hours and Liaqat Ali, respondent, was one of the assailants. A charge-sheet dated 20-4-1976 was issued to the respondent and he submitted his reply on 24-4-1976 denying the allegations. Enquiry notice dated 24-4-1976 for enquiry on the same day was issued to him, but he did not appear on that date and so another notice for enquiry on 2-5-1976 was Issued to him. He participated in the enquiry. Prior to the commencement of the enquiry he had nominated one Amanal Ali, Vice-President of the Union, to assist him in the enquiry, but the Management did not allow him on the ground that he was a dismissed worker and as such was no longer an employee of the Establishment. Thereafter, the respondent nominated one Mohammad Rafiq, who was the employee of the Establishment and this was allowed. The said Mohammad Rafiq assisted him in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty and, thereafter, second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17- 5-1976, but he did not submit any reply. The respondent was then dismissed from service on 29-5- 76.
3. The respondent, thereupon, challenged the order of his dismissal by way of a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 15-7-1976 before the Labour Court. The contention of the respondent was that since he was not allowed to have his nominee to assist him In his defence before the Enquiry Officer, the order of his dismissal was illegal.
4. The learned Labour Court, on the basis of the following observations, partly accepted his petition and ordered his re-instatement without back benefits :- "My opinion is that Amanat Ali was competent to represent the case of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. He was the Vice-President of the Union and as such in the capacity of the Officer of the Union he had a right to represent the case of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. A refusal to allow him to act as nominee of the petitioner amounts to withholding proper 'chance of defence.
On this ground the order of dismissal is held illegal."
5. Aggrieved by the above decision, Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala, appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that according to clause 4 of Standing Order 15 of W. P. Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a workman against whom an enquiry is being conducted, if he so desires for his assistance in the enquiry, nominates any workman employed in that Establishment and the employer shall allow the workman so nominated to be present in the enquiry to assist the workman proceeded against. But since Amanat Ali, who in the first instance, had been nominated by the respondent, was no longer an employee of the Establishment as his services had already been terminated by the Management could not have been allowed to assist the respondent in the enquiry.
7. The learned Representative of the respondent, on the other hand, contended that Amanat All was the Vice-President of the respondent's Union which was a Collective Bargaining Agent, and as such the said Union could represent all or any of the workmen in any proceedings in view of section 22(12)(b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
8. Under Standing Order 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a right was given to a workman to nominate any workman employed in that Establishment, to assist him in the enquiry for the first time vide the amendment made by West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1972, which came into force on 14-11-1972. Prior to that the facility was not provided to a workman. Since the respondent is claiming the above right under this very amendment, he can only claim that right in accordance with it. It is a well-established rule of interpretation that where in a statute there are both general provision as well as special provision for meeting a particular situation, then it is the special provision which must be applied to that particular case or situation, of the general provision. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and other.
9. In the case Mohammad Hossain Mea v. Member, Board of Revenue, Government of East Pakistan and others it was observed that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute and the latter taken in its most comprehensive sense would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply.
10. In the case Tahira Haq v. J. H. Khan Niazi, Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan and others it was held that special provision in a special statute excludes also general provision in general law.
11. As already mentioned above the learned Representative of the respondent relied on section 22(12) (b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This applies only to provision under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and not to a domestic enquiry, which is held under the provision of W. P.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The aforesaid provision had already existed on the statute book and if the intention was to allow representation by an outsider, Standing Order 15(4) could have been so worded. From Standing Order 15(4) it appears that there was specific intention to exclude all outsiders. Even otherwise special provision under Standing Order 15(4) would prevail upon the general provision as mentioned in section1 2 3 22(12) (b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in view of the decisions cited above. Since the respondent had claimed the right to nominate a person of his own choice under the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, which came into force on 14-11-1972, he could only claim that right in accordance with that Amendment and not under section 22(12) (b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
12. In view of the above, I find no force in the contention of the representative of the respondent.
13. Now going through the enquiry proceedings I find that no prejudice had been caused to the respondent, because when his request for nominating Amanat Ali was rejected, his request for nominating Mohammad Rafiq was accepted and he assisted the respondent in the enquiry. There is no legal infirmity in the enquiry proceedings.
14. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the petition of the respondent filed under section 29-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
PLD 1973 SC 49 PLD 1963 Dacca 971 PLD 1968 Lah. 344