' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---These four civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the common decision dated 26-4-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby Appeals Nos.595(K), 596(K), 599(K) and 603(K) of 1997 preferred by the petitioners were dismissed, hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated, are that show-cause notices dated 11-12-1996 were issued to the petitioners stating therein that they left the place of their duty without seeking permission from their superiors and occupied the open space in front of PLC Counters at I.I. Chundrigar Branch of the Bank by putting a table and chair and two settees meant for use of customers and these acts allegedly committed on 8th, 9th and 10th December, 1999 amounted to misconduct. The petitioners, as per orders, dated 26-8-1997, were dismissed from service on the ground of alleged misconduct. The petitioners approached Labour Court through petitions under section 25 of I.R.O.
Which were dismissed on account of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, Thereafter they preferred abovesaid appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, which were dismissed by the impugned common decision, hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice about the enquiry proceedings was ever served upon the petitioners and therefore, such proceedings were ex parte thereby the petitioners were condemned unheard, consequently the order of their dismissal was in contravention of the Constitutional guarantees and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, considering that the Postal Department record confirmed that said letters were never delivered to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the letters were sent through registered post A.D and same be deemed to have been duly served upon the petitioners, but they did not participate in the proceedings, with the result that ex parte proceedings were conducted against them and they were dismissed from service.
6. Admittedly, the services of the petitioners with the respondent-Bank were of permanent workmen and same could not have been terminated on the ground of misconduct otherwise than in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 15(4), which reads as follows:-- "(4) No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and, the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman: ' Provided that the workman proceeded against may, if he so desires for his assistance in the enquiry, nominate 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 and shall not deduct his wages if the enquiry is held during his duty hours."
' The record would show that there is no reliable and satisfactory evidence to the effect that the petitioners were duly served with notices in respect of the enquiries conducted against them with regard to their alleged misconduct. The presumption that the alleged notices were served through the Postal Department has successfully been rebutted by producing the relevant letters of the Postal Department. In the circumstances, the letters issued were not served upon the petitioners and their dismissal orders having been passed without hearing them cannot be sustained.
Provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of 1968 are mandatory and their non-observance would vitiate the proceedings. Neither charge-sheets/show-cause notices were duly served upon the petitioners, nor any opportunity of hearing after completion of the alleged enquiry was given to them, consequently the proceedings with regard to the dismissal of the petitioners having been conducted in violation of natural justice and law cannot be sustained therefore, the orders of the Tribunal dismissing the appeals of the petitioners are set aside.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitions are converted into appeals and allowed with the direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellants with all back benefits.