' The appeal, dated 6-8-1999 is directed against the decision, dated 12-7-1999 of learned Labour Court No,2, Lahore, accepting the grievance petition of Saleem-ur-Rashidi, and ordering his reinstatement in service, although without back benefits. Cross-objections by Mr. Rashidi were filed in that behalf on 9-10-1999.
2. Mr. Slaeem-ur-Rashidi was a Sub-Editor of Daily Jang. On the allegation that he had repeated numerous news items, and considering it to be an act of misconduct or neglect of duty, he was served with a show-cause notice and then made to face an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge and recommended his removal from service. He was accordingly dismissed on 28-8-1994. He filed a grievance petition, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore, which Court on recording evidence, and discussing the nature of the controversy involved, set aside the order, dated 28-8-1994.
3. In the opinion of the learned Labour Court, the administrative order suffered from legal infirmity on two planes. The show-cause notice and the charge-sheet had not emanated from the Authority, competent in the matter and second show-cause notice (followed by an opportunity of personal hearing) had not been issued to the employee. The proceedings initiated and conducted against the accused employee and the order of his removal from service thus, were not in accordance with law, according to the learned Labour Court, which Court found itself inclined to strike down the management's order, dated 28-8-1994, and grant the prayer of the petitioner.
4. The matter in controversy is quite simple. The show-cause notice was initially on 7-11-1993 issued by the General Manager, and the enquiry was held by Mr. Haroon Latif Khan, Personnel Officer, who submitted his report on 10-7-1994. The Resident Director (Dr. Arshad Islam) conveyed to Mr. Saleem, on 31-8-1994, the final order of his dismissal from service, having been issued, as stated, with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief/Chief Executive. It will not be disputed that the G.M. And the Resident Director are part and parcel of the management, and come under the ambit of the employer, and by no stretch of imagination can these officers be excluded from the purview of the term.
5. So far as service of second show-cause notice is concerned, it is so well-known that it is the requirement of the Civil Service Laws and known that it is the requirement of the Civil Service Laws and not the Labour Laws. Under the Standing Order 15, the employer is to elicit to explanation of the employee on making him aware of the charges against him, and if his reply is found to be unsatisfactory, an independent probe is to follow. There is certainly no need to issue to the accused, following the enquiry the second show-cause notice and to afford him an opportunity of hearing afresh. It has been so pronounced authoritatively in PLD 1982 SC 460 and 1999 SCM R 1237.
Mr. Saleem-ur-Rashidi had taken part in the proceedings of enquiry and had cross-examined the witnesses of prosecution or the management, and led his own evidence in defence. In the circumstances, there was no need to serve him again with a notice and to provide him an opportunity of hearing at the end. The administrative order, as such, did not suffer from any irregularity.
6. As regards the nature of the allegation, it is to be borne in mind that Mr. Saleem-ur-Rashidi had not denied but had admitted the same, maintaining at the same time, however, that it had been occurring before, as well. Certain news published on 4-11-1992 had again been given for publication on 5-11-1992 and repeated in the paper on 6-11-1992. It is maintained by the official that the event did not constitute an act of misconduct, as defined in the Labour Laws, especially as it was not an uncommon incident. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the definition of misconduct as contained in Standing Order 15(3), Industrial and Commercial Employment (Sanding Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. I am not, however, impressed by the argument advanced by the official and his learned counsel. The definition cannot possibly cover the whole field of human activity, in all walks of life and every sphere, of performance of duty, in all the departments of public service, all official, semi-official establishments, as also private agencies and organizations. The head of an establishment, or the employer, in his own assessment, may regard a particular act as an incidence of misconduct, of course, not losing sight of the broad frontiers and underlying spirit of the statute. The ill-imputed to the official, in this case, could be regarded or construed as an instance of insubordination, dishonesty, breach of rules, negligence, neglect of labour, unwanted, unwarranted recurrence of an activity, an incidence of omission in the performance of duty, etc. The employer certainly would not be precluded from taking to task the employees for their acts of commission and omission, calculated to bring a bad name to the organization and lower its prestige or tarnish its good name. If a piece of news is repeated, the reader will certainly not be eligible to proclaim or exclaim "it is a news to me". Jang Publications is an organization, having national and international, countrywide and worldwide reputation. If something of the sort ascribed to the Sub-Editor (acknowledged by him as well) takes place, it will undoubtedly impair the image of the institution. There is another aspect. The 'paper' might generally be facing the problem of paucity or unavailability of space, for publication of more and still more news. Enough of space was consumed in re-publication or repetition of the old news as many as 24, and the same could well have been utilized for adding to the awareness of the reader and bringing to his notice or knowledge fresh and further and latest news. What had been published on the previous day had become sale and it would have been nauseating and unpalatable for the reader to come across the same old news. In the estimation of the high-ups or the management, this was no good phenomenon, it was not a happy happening, and performance of the sub-editor was not up to the expectation, it was rather calculated to spoil or molest the established reputation or the high standard of status' of the newspaper.
7. The official has not blamed or dubbed the management for having gone inimically hostile towards him and acted, in a maliciously mala fide manner. The management must have taken stock of the whole situation and decided to proceed against the official in no undue or indecent haste or in a biased or vindictive way, gentleman having served the set up continuously ever since 1982, not as an ordinary official or worker, but as a Sub-Editor.
8. He did not deny the incidence and did not give lie to the 'mishap', maintaining, as already said, that this had been happening earlier as well. He even apologized and begged for a magnanimous view of the situation. Then there remained nothing to be established in the course of the proceedings and in the light of the evidence. The management was of the view that by repetition of the news the good will or the repute of the 'daily' had suffered a set-back and the confidence of the reader in the authenticity and freshness of the new's had been shaken or injured. More news, as many as 24/25, could be published in the space that had gone waste, and it had also recoiled adversely on the prestige and reputation of the paper, daily Jang. I am as such driven to the belief that management was not unjust or inequitable or wrongful in proceeding against the gentleman and finally taking him off the rolls of the establishment, especially as he had not improved, despite warnings_ issued and penalties imposed in the past, for similar slackenings.
9. Mr. Saleem-ur-Rashidi has taken up the stand that he had unlawfully been ousted from service and over the last several years he has been starving, being job-less. Much later, in 1999, he got employment with the Daily "DIN", but not against a handsome salary. He has, however, not tendered the 'salary slip' in proof of his claim and to show as to when he had got the employment in question and for how long has he been there, and what was his salary. As such, the quantum of the back benefits, that he was entitled to have, in the event of rescission of the order of his removal from service, could not possibly and accurately be determined. Now that I have set aside the learned lower Court's order, and have endorsed or upheld the management's impugned order, Mr. Saleem- ur-Rashidi will evidently have no entitlement to lay claim to emoluments, in any measure, for the period, he has been out of service of the appellant organization.
10. I would resultantly rescind the learned lower Court's order, but with no order as to costs, as the verdict of the two Courts has been at variance. The appeal stands accepted. The cross-objections of the respondent being not tenable are rejected.