Brief facts are that the petitioner had joined the Establishment of the respondents as. Steward on daily wages basis. His services were confirmed as Junior Steward in the year 1992. Service career of the petitioner is unblemished. He was issued show-cause notice on 17-10-1998 by the respondent No,2 with the allegation that Assistant Director Anti-Corruption Department, Lahore has reported that petitioner is a permanent employee in the Education Department and working as a Teacher in a School at Kot Abdul Malik, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, whereas he is also employed as Waiter in Pearl Continental Hotel, Lahore since 2-1-1992. As the petitioner is a Government employee he is not entitled to work at two places simultaneously. The petitioner is Member of the P.C. Hotel Employees' Union. On the instigation of his opponent group he has been proceeded against illegally and was suspended without obtaining his reply. He was subjected to unfair labour practice by the respondents hence this petition.
2. Petition was vigorously contested. Preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction of this Commission and maintainability of this petition were raised. On facts it was asserted that petitioner is having no concern with any trade union. He was proceeded against on the charge of misconduct, because he has concealed this fact that he is a permanent employee of Education B Department and got the service in the respondents-establishment.. The petitioner did not deserve any relief.
3. The petitioner has produced affidavit in support of his contention. He was subjected to cross- examination. He admitted the validity of Mark-R/1 his appointment letter. He further clarified that he has submitted no-objection certificate issued by the Education Department when he has joined the service of the respondents on 26-8-1990. Thereafter, the same certificate was verified by the Education Department on 28-11-1998. He asserted that he is the contributory of the union fund. The letter issued by the P.C. Hotel Employees' Union CBA is available on the record, which verified this fact that petitioner is member of the trade union. Admittedly petitioner was proceeded against on the basis of a letter allegedly issued by Shahbaz Malik, Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Department wherein it was pointed out that petitioner being a School Teacher is illegally serving in P.C. Hotel, so not only the Education Department, but also the administration of the P.C. Will also be taken to the task. The difficulty for the petitioner started from this letter. Strange enough the said letter was found forged. It was not verified by the Anti-Corruption Department. It was specifically reported that Malik Shahbaz was never any officer in the Anti-Corruption Department, Lahore Region. Furthermore it was verified through letter dated 1-4-1999 by Mr. Naeem Iqbal, Assistant Director Anti-Corruption Investigation/Complaint, Lahore Region, Lahore that no inquiry/investigation is pending/under process with Anti-Corruption Department, Lahore. Region, Lahore against M. Riaz (petitioner an employee of PC Hotel, Lahore/PTC Teacher Baddo, Sheikhupura). A certificate was issued by the Headmaster Government Primary School, Baddo, Tehsil Ferozewala on 20-3-1999 in which he has verified this fact that petitioner is performing his duties as School Teacher vigilantly and efficiently. It was pointed out, that this fact is in the knowledge of the Education Department that petitioner is also working in P.C. Hotel, Lahore and no- objection certificate was issued by the Education Department that after working hours of the school petitioner is authorized to have a private job. All the said documents clearly denote that petitioner is member of P.C. Hotel Employees Union. A fake letter was issued to the P.C.
Administration on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Department, which was made basis to initiate proceedings against the petitioner and to kick him out from service of the respondents Establishment. That letter has been found forged.
4. When petitioner was issued show-cause notice he immediately approached this Commission, but the administration started inquiry against the petitioner. He was suspended and the report was submitted against him. The inquiry report is available on the record but no copy of the said inquiry was given to the petitioner and his request to issue a copy was turned down.
5. On behalf of the respondents M. Ishaque Ch., Manager (P&A) P.C. Hotel appeared. He has verified the contents of affidavit Exh.R/1. Documents Marks-R/1 to R/15 were also tendered in his evidence which relates to the appointment of the petitioner and the inquiry proceedings against him. He was cross-examined. He admitted that petitioner was affiliated with the respondents Organization on 2-1-1992. He was verified this fact that services of the petitioner were confirmed by the General Manager meaning thereby petitioner was premanent employee of the respondent-Organization.
This fact is also admitted by the witness that there was no complaint against the petitioner.
Disciplinary action was initiated only against the petitioner on the allegations of double employment. He conceded that regarding disciplinary action Anti-Corruption Department was never approached. This fact was frankly admitted by the witness, that every permanent employee is affiliated 'with trade unionism.
6. In the light of above evidence, following facts have been established on the record:
(i) Above admission verified this fact that the petitioner is member of the trade union. The validity of the certificate referred to above regarding the membership of the petitioner of a trade union remain in no doubt.
(ii) This fact has been established and admitted on the record that petitioner was the permanent employee of the respondent-Establishment since 2-1-1992.
(iii) This is also an admitted fact that there was no complaint against the petitioner regarding his work and conduct in the respondent-Establishment throughout. He was only proceeded against on the basis of the fake letter allegedly issued by the Anti-Corruption Department -which was subsequently found forged because the signatory of the said letter namely Shahbaz Malik never remained employee of the Anti-Corruption Department.
(iv) This fact is not denied that petitioner performed his duties throughout his career in the respondent-Establishment from 03-00 p.m. To 12 night.
(v) As far as work and conduct in the Education Department is concerned that was also found satisfactory and there was no complaint against the petitioner.
(vi) This is also an admitted fact that respondent-Establishment is a Private Enterprises.
7. Keeping in view the norms of equity and justice there was no occasion to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of a fake letter especially when there was no complaint against the petitioner from the Education Departments where he is working as permanent employee as Tacher instead NOC was issued in favour of the petitioner that he is allowed to perform part-time job.
8. In the light of above analysis in my humble view there was no embargo upon the petitioner to serve in the respondent's Establishment at evening time after working hours of Government service.
He never concerned this fact that he is a School Teacher as he got the NOC from his Department then joined the service of the respondent. From all the facts, this is crystal clear that petitioner was only proceeded against by the respondent's Establishment to save their skin as in the fictitious and forged letter allegedly issued by the Anti-Corruption Department, threats were also extended to the respondents Establishment to initiate proceedings against them. Once the said letter is found forged and has not been verified by the Anti-Corruption Department, then on the basis of the said letter all the proceedings against the petitioner will go to the gallows. The possibility cannot be ruled out that some member of the rival union manoeuvred to issue the said letter on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Department only to launch proceedings against the petitioner to oust him from service which is not a fair play.
9. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that according to the Condition No,11 of the appointment letter, petitioner was not entitled to have a part-time or full-time employment with any other Organisation during his employment in the Hotel. The petitioner has violated the abovementioned term as such he was rightly proceeded against. No doubt the said condition is available in the appointment letter. The question arises that the petitioner from the very beginning brought this fact to the notice of the respondents Establishment that he is a School Teacher. NOC was produced. He served in respondents Establishment for years together as permanent employee. During that period no such objection was raised. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner throughout his service career performed duties from 0-30 p.m. To 12 night. Whereas the remaining employees of the Management used to perform duties on rotation. It was due to the reasons that petitioner has brought this fact to the notices of the Establishment, that in the early hours he has to perform his duties as School Teacher so the said term and condition has not been violated by the petitioner, instead the respondents Establishment provided permanent job to the petitioner without raising any objection in view of the said condition. Now the respondents Establishment is estopped to raise this objection.
10. This is appreciable that the petitioner is working hard. In these hard days it is very difficult to pull on and to look after his family. If the petition& was performing duties as School Teacher vigilantly and efficiently. After working hours, if he has joined the respondent-Establishment while bringing this fact to the notice of his parent department. In my view he had not done wrong. The petitioner is triving hard to look after his family, while working round the clock. He believes in hard work as well as honesty so we must appreciate such-like workers instead of perpetuating upon them atrocities and to kick them out from the service. It will not be fair to deprive a hard worker from his livelihood.
11. What has been discussed above, it follows the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner was proceeded against illegally by the respondents Establishment. Not only the show-cause notice but also all the inquiry proceedings are illegal, so the same are set at naught. I direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service forthwith.
12. The petitioner was restrained to perform his duties illegally by the respondents-Establishment, so keeping in view the norms of equity and justice half of his salary be given to him regarding the period in which he was not allowed to perform his duties as back benefits. Petition stands accepted. /Order accordingly.