' The petitioner has challenged the consolidated order of the Sind Labour Court No. IV dated 9-12- 1975, passed on three appeals of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 whereby the order of the Junior Labour Court dismissing the applications of the said respondents under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, had been dismissed.
2. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) were employed as store keepers in the petitioner-Company and were charge-sheeted with the theft of Asylitine gauge from the Store. The 4th storekeeper had voluntarily collected his dues and left the service while the respondents were individually charge-sheeted on 5-2-1975. They submitted their replies on 7-2- 1975 which were found unsatisfactory resulting in holding of an enquiry which was conducted by one Mohammad Sarwar. The respondents duly participated in the enquiry proceedings without raising any objection. The Enquiry Officer found the respondents guilty and suggested their dismissal from service. The Management thereupon issued second show-cause notices to the respondents under Registered Post A. D. Alongwith copy of the Enquiry Report and the respondents were asked to submit their replies or appear personally for hearing. The second show-cause notice was, however, not served on the respondent No. 4 on the given address and was duly received by the other two respondents. It is stated in the petition that reply to the second show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory and the Management, taking lenient view, instead of dismissing the respondents terminated their service and offered them to collect their legal dues. The respondents being aggrieved of the said decision moved the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the I. R.
0., 1969, but their applications were dismissed. They took up the matter further with the first respondent which allowed their appeals as per impugned order and ordered their re-intatement in service.
3. The matter was first heard on 13-8-1978 when after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner the case was reserved for orders. However, later the counsel for the respondents appeared in Chamber and requested for hearing and so was done by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. Accordingly the matter was reheard in Chamber on 16-8-1978 when the learned counsel also filed their written arguments.
4. Mr. Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the first respondent that there was violation of principles of natural justice in the case, inasmuch as copies of enquiry proceedings were not supplied to the respondents, is without lawful authority as the same does not find any support from the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In this connection he referred to clause (4) of Standing Order No. 15, which reads as under :- "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 learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in Constitutional Petition No. 401/78, "Badruzzaman v. IIIrd Junior Labour Court and others". One of the contentions raised in the said petition was that the papers of enquiry proceedings had not been supplied to the petitioner; although the report of the enquiry officer alongwith the show-cause notice had been sent to the petitioner. His Lordship observed that the counsel for the petitioner had been unable to produce any authority in support of his contention that furnishing of enquiry proceedings was a requirement of law. He further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. In that case a second show- cause notice had not been issued and their Lordships held that it was necessary and consistent with the principles of natural justice that the respondent in that case should not only have been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report but should have also been given an opportunity to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him. The mere fact that the respondent was given a personal hearing with the employer was found unsatisfactory and it was held that such hearing could not replace the requirement of law. The learned counsel further referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Shamim v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd.. The relevant observations which appear at page 48 of the report are as follows ;- "The Standing Order No. 15(4) only requires that no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct. In the present case he was given an opportunity to explain the allegations made against him. Mr. Shahinshah has referred to a decision of this Court in Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others. In that case it was held that it was necessary and consistent with the principles of natural justice that not only the respondent should have been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report but also he should have been given an opportunity to show cause why the order of1 2 dismissal should not be passed against him. This case is distinguishable from the present case. In this case, a show-cause notice was given in writing. The result of the inquiry report was also communicated to him. It is admitted that the petitioner did not ask the respondent to supply a copy of the enquiry report. In such circumstances, the petitioner can have no legitimate grievance in that respect. We would, therefore, repel this contention."
' The respondents have filed their Counter Affidavits and they have admitted their participation in the enquiry and have stated that they did so in order to prove their innocence. There is no complaint whatsoever that a copy of enquiry report was not furnished to them and no mention is made as to in what manner any prejudice was caused to them.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that copies of enquiry proceedings were not supplied to the respondents and it was also alleged that after receipt of the second show-cause notice the respondents had demanded the copies of the same, more specifically the copies of statements of prosecution witnesses, and the same were not supplied. He relied upon decision of this Court reported in Messrs International Laboratories Employees' Union v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the said judgment it was held that no order of dismissal could be passed unless workman was informed in writing of alleged misconduct and given an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing against him. In the said case it was not disputed that charge-sheet had not been duly served and copies of enquiry report were also made available to the workers. It was held that that there was no "compliance of the absolute right of the workers of being heard to explain anything against them in the enquiry reports". No such allegation has been made in this petition. The judgment in question, therefore, is not applicable to the facts of this case. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of this Court reported in PLD 1973 Kar.
167. In that case it was held that the domestic enquiry Procedure is in the nature of quasi-judicial procedure and as such it is necessary that the workman against whom an enquiry has been held should in all fairness be supplied with copies of statement of witnesses whose evidence was recorded during the course of enquiry. If a worker asks for copies of statement of the witnesses the Management cannot be held back the same and if it is not done, the same would certainly amount to violation of the rules of. Natural justice. In the instant case there is no allegation that respondents had asked for the copies of the statement of witnesses, and, therefore, this judgment is also of no help to the respondents. Apart from the facts that the judgments are distinguishable on facts the weighty pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clear on the point. There is no requirement under any Standing Order that a worker should be furnished with copies of the enquiry proceedings as held by the learned first respondent and, in the circumstances, his finding in this respect is not sustainable in law.
' Before parting with the judgment, however, I must add that I was deeply impressed by the painstaking arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
' In the result this petition must succeed. The impugned order of the first respondent dated 9-12- 1975, is, therefore, quashed but there will be no order as to costs.
1973 SC MR 455 1975 SCM R 46 1976 PLC 38 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.