AKBAR M. MEMON, MEMBER.- Appellant hereinabove, has challenged the order of his demotion dated 11.8.200Q and order dated 15.8.2000, whereby the respondents accepted the so-called option under Voluntary Retirement Facility. Both the orders dated 11.8.2000 and 15.8.2000 are reproduced hereunder:- "MEMORANDUM As a result of enquiry , Mr. Ch. Muhammad Slam, Skilled Worker (PG-V)(P.No. 35, 39, 14) has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him in the show-cause notice No. ASGM/Admin/1 298/99/1323, dated 27.10.1999. However, taking a lenient view competent authority has decided to demote him to the lower rank/pay group i.e. Skilled Worker in PG-IV with immediate effect.
His pay in PG-IV will be refixed as per rules.
Sd/- (KHIZAR HAYAT)
Dy. Manager (Admin) for Incharge (AS&GN)
ACCEPTANCE OF OPTION UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FACILITY Mr. Muhammad Aslam Desig. Sk. Worker P.No. 353914 Department AS&GN is informed that consequent upon his own request dated 31.7.2000 for Voluntary Retirement Facility under Policy circulated vide No. A&P-99- 8/4(VRF)/P&C, dated 25th May, 2000, the Competent Authority has accepted his request for Voluntary Retirement, from service with immediate effect as per terms and conditions laid down in the abovesaid communication.
2. He, therefore, stands retired from the service of Pakistan Steel with immediate effect.
3. He is advised to produce 'NO DEMAND/CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE' from all the concerned departments of Pakistan Steel for final settlement of his accounts/dues (N.D.C. Sub-joined).
Sd/- (HAMID PERVEZ) Incharge (A&P)".
2. Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghauri learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was initially appointed as skilled worker/fitter by the respondents in PG-IV on 1.4.1987 and lastly he was working as skilled worker on account of his good performance. He has contended that the appellant was active member of the union, as such, he was not liked by the then Managing Director who is presently working as Chairman of the respondents. He has contended that on account of disliking of the high ups as many as 17 show-cause notices were issued against the appellant which are available in appeal file from Annexures C/1 to C/17. He has contended that the victimization of the appellant was at the peak as he was placed under suspension. He has contended that the cause of victimization was that the union had sought interview with the Advisor for Sindh Mr. Ghaus Ali Shah which was disliked by the high ups. He has contended that the show- cause notices were replied on which enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officers were nominated in multiple enquiries. He has contended that different enquiries were under process when the appellant in one enquiry was ordered to be demoted in lower pay group vide order dated 11.8.2000 against which he filed departmental appeal/grievance notice on 7.9.2000. He has contended that in the meantime another order was issued whereby the respondents accepted the option under VRF mentioning, therein that such a request was made by the appellant on which he filed application on 9.9.2000 for recalling the said. Order and had mentioned in the application that the letter purported to be the request of the appellant was bogus and that he had not at all opted for VRF, but the said representation/appeal remained un responded. Fie has contended that the appellant had not at all opted for VRF and those who were given show-cause notices alongwith the appellant have either been let of and some of them have been reinstated by this Tribunal whereas the present appellant has been discriminated. In this connection, he has quoted the name of Nisar Ahmed Shar and Abdul Latif Rajpar. He has contended' that the order of demotion was passed by unprescribed authority as in case pf the appellant the authorized Officer was General Manager, whereas authority was, that r of Director, but the impugned order, dated 11.8.2000 was issued by the Deputy Manager Admin., as such, the order is not sustainable, In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on 1983 PLC (CS) 901. He has further contended that the word' 'demotion' was used in the impugned order which is not available in the rules of the respondents, In this respect he has placed reliance on 2002 T.D. Service 158 and case of Abu Saleh and others in Appeal Nos. 41, 43 to 45(K)/1999, decided by this Tribunal on 16.11.2001. He has contended that demotion is a major penalty which cannot be imposed without holding proper enquiry. On this point he has placed reliance on PLJ 1997 (SC) 1393 and 2003 PLC (CS) 353. He has further contended that the enquiry was not doubt ordered but no proper enquiry was conducted, as such, the order of demotion is not liable to be sustained. On this point he had placed reliance on 1996 PLC (CS) 868, PLD 1994 (SC) 275 and 1997. T.D. Service 247. He has also contended that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant in question and answer form, which is not the requirement of law. 0n this point he has placed reliance on 2001 T.D. Service 361 and 2002 SCMR 433 and 1993 SCMR 1440. He has also contended that enquiry report was not supplied to the appellant before imposition of punishment nor second show-cause notice as served upon the appellant before recording of the punishment.
On this point he has placed reliance on 1987 SCMR 1774 and 1999 T.D. Service 135. He has contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order and since no reasons were assigned therein it is not an order in the eye of law. 0n this point he has placed reliance on 2002 PLC (CS) 1480. At the same time he has contended that no chance of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant which shows that the appellant was condemned unheard, In support of his contentions, he has placeful reliance on 2002 PLC (CS) 785. He has contended that over all it is a case of victimization as the respondents had served as many as V2 show-cause notices in which Enquiry Officer was appointed, but in one enquiry the appellant was demoted which means that the respondents intended to drag the appellant in case of his success, as such, the very act of the respondents in mala fide, In this regard, he has placed reliance on 1991 PLC (CS) 181 and 2000 SCMR 71. He has contended that in identical case of Abdul Latif Rajpar in Appeal No. 744(K)(CE)/2000 the appellant therein was given the same show-cause notice and on his filing appeal before this Tribunal, he has been reinstated, whereas notice against Nisar Ahmed Shar was withdrawn as such, it would be a case of discrimination, In this connection he has produced letters dated 12.2.2002 and 5.6.2002. In such circumstances, he has contended that the act of the respondents was totally mala fide as the appellant was not only demoted, but bogus option form was accepted whereby the appellant was required to proceed on VRF which are not liable to be sustained and that the appellant be reinstated back to his service with all back benefits.
3. Mr. Zahid Hamid learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. He has contended that the appellant has not made Pakistan Steel as party, as such, the appeal is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. On this point he has placed reliance on PLD 1971 Kar. 625. He has contended that since Pakistan Steel has not been made party, as such,, appeal must fail. He has also contended that since the appellant had alleged unfair labour practice as is apparent from paragraph 12 of the Memo, of Appeal, therefore, proper forum for him was that of N.I.R.C, and not this Tribunal. He Has contended that the appellant being unionist was intoxicated with illusion of power whereby he sought interview with Mr. Syed Ghous AM Shah Advisor, thereafter he assembled with 25 persons and misbehaved with the Officers of Pakistan Steel. He has contended that in, this background he was issued 17 show-cause notices. He has contended that the appellant was in habit of changing his signature which is evident from the option for Voluntary Retirement Facility dated 25.5.2000 (copy of which has been produced by him). He has contended that the signature of the appellant be compared with the one appearing on the option form and Annexures F/13 and G-27 and other papers, which would show that he had changed his signature. He has contended that the appellant was in habit of hoodwinking the management. Lastly he has contended that no infirmity has been pointed out in respect of the enquiry whereby he was demoted, no defect has been pointed out by the appellant in his grievance petition under Section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, as such, his appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghauri in reply has Contended that all the officials who passed orders have been joined as party and since the order itself was mala fide, therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party.
'5. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the appeal file and so also the authorities cited by Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
6. Appeal file has thoroughly been scanned and it appears that 17 show-cause notices were issued against the appellant on different subjects, but the same are altogether on the same lines where it was alleged that, he appellant entered the Officers of different Offices and had made certain demands or that the appellant alongwith others had pressurized the Officers for the acceptance of illegal demands. Lastly one of the notice as with regard to the fact that the appellant and his colleagues called on the former Advisor to the former Prima Minister without permission. All the 17 show-cause notices were replied and the respondents ordered initiation of enquiry by Enquiry Officers which were in process, In the meantime the appellant was ordered to be suspended and finally Memorandum was issued. 0n 11.8.2000 the respondents demoted the appellant as a result of enquiry in respect of show-cause notice SSGN/ADMN( 1290)/1323, dated 27.10.1999. This shows that the respondents wanted to take action against not only the appellant, but some 20 or 25 other colleagues which letter has not been produced by the' appellant, but it was produced in the case of Abdul Latif Rajpar in Appeal 744(K)(CE)/2000, as such, for the sake of convenience we intend to reproduced the same:- PAKISTAN STEEL (CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION)
MOST URGENT No; MP/Enq. Cell/99/21 95/ Dated 25th Oct., 99 From: Incharge (A&P)
General Administration, Pakistan Steel.
To: U.M. (0&D)/Civil Maint/SMD/Elect. Oprna Rolling/Hater & Power/EXD, Through/Accounts/Stores, Supit, Safety/AFFS, W/C.
PAKISTAN STEEL MEMO.
Sub: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYEES.
1. It has been reported that the following employees of Pakistan Steel called on Mr. Ghous AN Shah, former advisor to former Prime Minister on Sindh affairs on 11.10.1999 at about 1700 hours, discussed affairs of Pakistan Steel and criticized senior management of Pakistan Steel, without any lawful authority:- s. No. P.No. Names Designation Department
1. 353914 Muhammad Aslam, Sk. Worker. ASRUN
2. 212326 Ihsan Awan, Jr. Officer ALLIP/EMD
3. 355658 Nisar A. Shar, Storeman, Medical
4. 291625 Suba Masih, Sk./Sant Work. Maint.
5. 286028 Ghulam Nabi Shar, Sk. Worker SMD
6. 2532286 A. Malik Jatoi, -do- PSRS(E)
7. 361755 A. Latif Rajpar, Sub-Engg. CRM
8. 348019 M. Arif Mughal, Sk. Worker CRM
9. 237302 Khurshid A.K. Lodhi, -do- Safety/AFFS
10. 2273366 M. Anwer Rana Rajput, S. Guard. SMO
11. 354112 Ch. M. Afzal Anjum, Sk. Worker Town
12. 034991 Khijab Khan, Attendant P&D
13. 336777 Razi Abbas Shah, Sk. Worker P&D {{table}}
2. It is requested that necessary disciplinary action against them on account' of their following alleged acts of omission and commission may be initiated in terms of relevant clauses of ASSURER and Labour Laws whichever is applicable:--
(a) Calling on a Govt, functionary without obtaining prior permission from the employer.
(b) Frivolous and baseless propaganda against the Management of Pakistan Steel.
(c) Instigating employees against the Management of Pakistan Steel and Armed Forces of Pakistan with mala fide intention to harm conductive and congenial working atmosphere within the organization.
(d) Creating hatred among Federal and Provincial Government.
(e) Slipping away from place of duty during duty timings.
Sd/- (HAME PARVEEN) Incharge (A&P) c.c. To:- - SO to M.D.
G.M. Security)."
7. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the some of the appellants have been reinstated by the respondents and some got relief from this Tribunal but the appellant has been singled out, merits consideration as the name of another employee Nisar Ahmed Shar who was one of the delegatees also called upon Advisor to the Prime Minister alongwith others was subsequently left of by the respondents, as is evident from letter dated 12.2.2002 and we don't hesitate to reproduce the said letter which speaks:- PAKISTAN STEEL (CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION)
No.A&P/Enq-PB/2002/499 Dated: ' 12.2.2002 To, Mr. Nisar Ahmed Shar, Storeman (P.No. 355658), Stores Department, PAKISTAN STEEL Subject: DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
As a goodwill gesture it has been decided by the Competent Authority that disciplinary action initiated against you prior to 31st January, 2002 on account of charges levelled in the following show-cause notices/charge- sheets/statement of allegations/explanation may be withdrawn/closed subject to your undertaking that you will not break the norms of discipline/create law and order problem and display good conduct:-
(a) Show Cause Notice No. AP(PB)' 3(22)72000/2322, dated 12.5.2000.
(b) Statement, of Allegation and Charges No. AP(PB)-3(27)/2000/1424, dated 1 7.7.01.
(c) Explanation No. MED/AMMN/(PF-122)/99/ 536, dated 26.10.1999.
(d) Show Cause Notice No. MED/AMMN/(PF- 122J/99/545, dated 26.10.1999.
(e) Show Cause Notice No. MED/AMMN/(PF- 1 22)/99/559-A, dated 27.10.1999.
(f) Show Cause Notices NO. MED/AMMN/(PF- 122)/99/574, 576 to 578 to 590, dated 28.10'1 999.
2. You are advised .To submit the said undertaking so that aforesaid disciplinary action are withdrawn/closed.
Sd/- (HAMID PERVEZ) Incharge (A&P)"
This clearly speaks of the. Discriminatory attitude which was meted out by the present appellant and such an action on the part of the respondents is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of. Pakistan.
8. With all this, the arguments advanced by Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghuari have totally thrown light on the caso of the appellant as the demotion order was passed by unprescribed Officer and that no copy of the enquiry report as supplied to him. Even no final show-cause notice as issued and finally no chance of personal hearing was afforded to him which clearly speak of the fact that the appellant was condemned unheard. The arguments advanced by. Learned counsel for the appellant get support from the fact that no document whatsoever has been filed by the respondents to prove that regular enquiry in fact was conducted by the respondents whereby appellant was demoted.
9. The appellant has no doubt challenged both the orders dated 11.8.2000 and 15.8.2000 which have been reproduced above. We are conscious Of the fact that the appellant has challenged 2 orders in this appeal and relying on a case reported in 1992 PLC (CS) 685, we are of the view that the appellant has rightly challenged both the orders by this appeal and by doing so he is not debarred under any rule of procedure.
10. Coming to another order dated 15.8.2000 we would like to bring it on record that the respondents issued a letter on 15.8.2000 under the subject "Acceptance of Option under VRF" wherein it was informed that he request of the appellant dated 31.7.2000 was accepted but appellant's application in the shape of appeal dated 9.9.2000 is also on record wherein he had denied to have made such request and had specifically termed the said request from to be bogus one and had requested for withdrawal of the same. Had the appellant any intention to do so he could have accepted the benefits, but it has n6t been done, as such, whatever has been stated by the appellant that it was a bogus form which was purported to be a requested from his side is correct. No doubt, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a plea that the appellant was in habit of changing his signature, as such, appellant's claim may not be taken into any account merits no consideration in view of the denial of the appellant.
1 T.. As regards the argument of Mr. Zahid Hamid learned counsel for the respondents, that the appeal is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, we would like to bring it on record that the appellant has no doubt' filed his appeal against Officers who passed the orders and has given their respective names but we are of the view that the present appeal is, not in the form of suit for damages and incase he has given the names of the" Officers, we find that the appellant had become some.
What emotional and due to this reason, he had given the names, though beneath the names of the officials, their respective designation has also been given, as such, argument advanced by Mr. Zahid Hamid. Doesn't seem to be tenable.
12. The last argument advanced by Mr. Zahid Hamid is in respect of paragraph 2 of the Memo, of Appeal for which he has contended that the proper forum for the appellant was that of N.I.R.C, and not this Tribunal also merits no consideration, as the appellant had alleged victimization on the part of the respondents, wherein chain of notices were served upon him one after the other, which were in respect of not only present appellant, but some 20/25 other employees and when one of the employee namely Nisar Ahmed Shar was let of, it is purely a case of discrimination, as such, we while allowing the appeal in hand, set aside both the impugned orders dated 11.8.2000 and 15.8.2000 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in the same position which he was enjoying prior to 11.8.2000 with all back benefits.
12. With this observation, appeal in hand stands disposed of with no orders as to costs.
13. Parties be informed accordingly.
BARKAT ALI BALOCH, MEMBER.- I have gone through the judgment, written by my learned colleague Mr. Akbar M. Memon, in respect of the above appeal, It is an admitted fact, proved through the record of this appeal that, the appellant has filed his appeal against two distinct and adverse orders passed against him by two different officers of the respondent's Corporation on different dates. Hence, in my view the appellant should not have combined his prayer for setting aside the two different orders through this single appeal, seeking relief against these two different and distinct orders. The perusal of record shows that the appellant preferred departmental appeal under Section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 against the adverse order of his reversion from Grade-V to Grade-IV, dated 11.8.2000, on 7.9.2000 while he filed a different departmental appeal against the order dated 15.8.2000 whereby his alleged option under Voluntary Retirement Facility was accepted. This departmental appeal is dated 9.9.2000. Thus, there are not only two different and distinct adverse orders whereby the appellant is aggrieved, but the appellant has himself filed two different departmental appeals on different dates in respect of both these orders. As such, in my view, the appellant should have filed two different appeals before this Tribunal, challenging the impugned orders separately. The adverse order of reversion of the appellant is alleged to have been passed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, conducted against the appellant in respect of a show-cause notice issued against the appellant on 27.10.1999, which is available with the memo, of appeal as Annexure 'C/2' and the same is reproduced hereunder:- PAKISTAN STEEL AIR. STEAM & GAS NETWORKS (OPN).
No.ASGN/Admin/(1 2981/99/1 323 Dated: 27th October, 1999.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam, S/Worker (P. No. 353914), I.P.N.S. Section (AS&GN), PAKISTAN STEEL.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE It has been reported that on 12.10.1 999 at about 0935 hours a group of about 20 to 25 members of members of Labour League led by you entered in the office of Director (A&P) at Head Office Building without prior permission or appointment. Security Staff on duty tried to stop/control you but by showing the force and aggressive mood, you and other entered in the office and occupied the chairs, rudely behaved with Director (A&P) and illegally demanded four vehicles and allocation of offices at Conference Hall.
Your above act is riotous, disorderly behaviour during the working hours in the Establishment and also subversive of discipline which amounts to misconduct Under-Section 15(3) (h) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Establishment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1 968.
You are hereby directed to show -cause in writing by 1.11.1999, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.
Sd/- (RAB NAWAZ MINHAS)
DY. GENERAL MANAGER (ASGN".
Undoubtedly, besides the above show-cause notice, the management of the respondent's corporation had also issued as many as 16 other show-cause notices against the appellant containing different allegations of subversion of discipline, misconduct and numerous other allegations. The appeal file contains all these show-cause notices., issued to the appellant as well as replies of the appellant to all the show-cause notices. The record also contains appointment of Enquiry Officers in respect of each show-cause notice. This appeal is confined only to the inquiry proceedings conducted in respect of show-cause notice, which has been reproduced above, wherein Mr. Sohail Banday was appointed as Enquiry Officer and such notice dated 28.12.1999 for conducting" probe into the charges levelled against the appellant was issued and the appellant was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 30.12.1999. This enquiry was conducted, as per admission of the appellant, contained in his departmental appeal dated 7.9.2000. The relevant para, of departmental appeal is reproduced hereunder:- "I appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 30.12.1999. Enquiry Officer conducted -the enquiry on different dates 'and I pleaded my- case there that, I was neither involved in such type of in incident nor such incident took place. Suddenly I was shocked when I received a letter dated 1 1.8,2000 under the signature of Mr. Khizer Hayat for Dy. General Manager (AS&GN) that I have been demoted to a lower rank/grade on PH-UV. This illegal step was taken against the show-cause notice dated 27.12.1999, the charges levelled in which I had already denied."
This further proves that a format inquiry was conducted into, the allegations, levelled against the appellant and the appellant had admittedly taken part in the inquiry proceedings, It further speaks of having conducted the inquiry on different dates and this is supported by a letter dated 13.1.2000 whereby the Enquiry Officer had adjourned the inquiry proceedings on the request of the appellant.
This notice is available in the appeal file as Annexure 'G/16'. This inquiry ultimately was fixed on 25.1.2000 when, vide letter dated 19/21.1.2000 (Annexure 'G/24'), the appellant was provided copy of the statement of the prosecutor and the inquiry had been finally adjourned to 25.1.2000 with a direction to the appellant to bring his evidence in writing or physical and he was also allowed 'to bring co-worker in his support, It is, therefore, that the appellant in his departmental appeal has candidly admitted that he had appeared before the Enquiry Officer on different dates and he has further admitted that he had pleaded his case, In para. 4 of the departmental appeal, .The appellant has admitted to be the General Secretary of Pakistan Steel Mazdoor League. But the appellant has never complained about not providing him an opportunity of defence in his departmental appeal dated 7.9.2000. These facts show that a formal inquiry into the allegations against the appellant was held with ample opportunity of defence to him. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was not given any opportunity of defence or that no formal inquiry was held against the appellant.
2. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on number of authorities in general and an appeal decided by this Tribunal in particular, whereby in appeal No. 744(K)
(CE)/2000 {Abdul Latif Rajpar v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and others) the action of the respondent's corporation was held illegal and the order of dismissal passed against the said appellant Abdul Latif Rajpar was set aside by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 7.2.2003. It will be enough to say that the facts of the above judgment are quite different and distinguishable vis-a- vis the facts of the appeal in hand. There were quite different charges against appellant in the above-quoted appal, which are mentioned in the relevant judgment, In the instant appeal, out of 17 different show-cause notices/charges, the appellant has been punished only in one inquiry, culminating as a result of show-cause notice dated 27.10.1999, which has been reproduced above.
The provisions of Section '15(3)(h) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are fully attached to the case of appellant as per allegations, contained in the show-cause notice issued against him. It cannot be termed as a discriminatory action, when out of 17 different allegations of different- inquiries, pending against the appellant, the appellant has been found guilty in one such charge, which is mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 27.10.1999. What I feel is that contrary to the prayer of the appellant in his appeal, the respondents appear to be lenient to him by inflicting our the punishment of reversion to one lower grade. There is no similarity of the appeal of the appellant with that of Abdul Latif Rajpar wherein the appellant Abdul Latif Rajpar was dismissed from service. Thus, in my view, no injustice has been done to the appellant who, as per allegations contained in as many as 17 show-cause notice, was alleged to have virtually disrupted the working of the Mills, while leading a mob of co-workers, which has not been denied. No industrial concern of any magnitude, particularly such a huge industrial concern as Steel Mills, can run properly without industrial peace. The unruly and utterly subversive attitude of labour playing in the hands of various political and vested interests, cannot be tolerated much less ignored being unpunished, when certain proof is made available through formal disciplinary proceedings as is the case in the instant appeal. Besides, the only Steel Mill of the Country in public sector being among the strategic assets of the State cannot be left at the mercy of mobsters and being paralysed through hooliganism. I, therefore, hold that the punishment given to the appellant by way of demotion from Grade-V to Grade-IV is proper and appropriate and thus the appeal of the appellant against this punishment does not merit any consideration and the same is rejected.
3. So fat as the grievance of the appellant in respect of the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme is concerned, he has a quite different case, which could have been subject-matter of a separate appeal. Since the appellant has chosen to seek relief in .Respect of two different grievances through this single appeal; hence, the second grievance of the appellant in respect of.
Wrong acceptance of option, requires different treatment, It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the present Chairman of Steel Mill has personal grudge against the appellant, but he has failed to substantiate this wild allegations, as no proof or any instance of grudge being harboured against the appellant has been shown through any evidence or any other document.
The respondent's Corporation viz. Steel Mills is a very big concern in public sector where thousands of employees of various categories and grades are working there. There is no denial of the fact that of late, the Mill has been running in sound and beneficial manner. The only allegation levelled by the appellant that the Chairman of the Pakistan Steel is a Lieutenant Colonel and formerly belonging to Army, would not ipso facto, prove the allegations of discrimination .Unless, the appellant provides concrete and substantial proof and material in this respect. Hence, we cannot subscribe to such ambiguous and sweeping allegations, particularly when the appellant himself admits to be General Secretary of a particular union having operating within Steel Mills. Whatever the case may be, the allegations are that the option form in respect of Voluntary Retirement Scheme is bogus one and it has not been signed by him. Under such situation, we would like that so far the acceptance of option under Voluntary Retirement Facility by the appellant is concerned, this question needs further probe for which we are contained to order that proper inquiry be made into such allegations, levelled by the appellant for which a period of three months is given to the management of the respondent's corporation.
4. The appellant is, therefore, re-instated in Grade-IV to participate in the inquiry/probe about the allegations in respect of option of Voluntary Retirement Facility. The payment of back benefits to the appellant' will depend upon the result of such probe.
5. With this modification, the appeal - of the appellant stands disposed of accordingly, with no order about costs.
JUSTICE (R) AMANAULLAH ABBASI, CHAIRMAN.- There is difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Members. The opinion of Mr. Akbar M.
Member in paras. 1,2 to 14 of the judgment is as under:- "12. The last argument advanced by Mr. Zahid Hamid is rn respect of paragraph 12 of the Memo, of Appeal for which he has contended that the proper forum for the appellant was that of N.I.R.C, and not this Tribunal also merits no consideration, as the appellant had alleged victimization on the part of the respondents, wherein chain of notices were served upon him one after the other, which were in respect of not only present appellant, but some 20/25 other employees and when one of the employee namely Nisar Ahmed Shar was let of, it is purely a case of discrimination, as such, we while allowing the appeal in hand, set aside both the impugned orders dated 11.8.2000 and 15.8.2000 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in the same position which he was enjoying prior to 11.8.2000 with all back benefits.
13. With this observation, appeal in hand stands disposed of with no orders as to cost.
14. Parties be informed accordingly."
7. The opinion of Hon'ble Member Mr. Barkat AN Baloch in paras. 2, 3-5 of the judgment are as under:- Last four lines of para. 2 are as under:- "2. I, therefore, hold that the punishment given to the appellant by way of demotion from Grade-V to Grade-IV is proper and appropriate and thus the appeal of the appellant against this punishment does not merit any consideration and the same is rejected.
3. So far as the grievance of the appellant in respect of the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme is concerned, he has a quite different case, which could have been subject-matter of a separate appeal. Since the appellant has chosen to seek relief in respect of two different grievances through this single appeal; hence, the second grievance of the appellant in respect of wrong acceptance of option, requires different treatment, It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Present Chairman of Steel Mill has personal grudge against the appellant, but he has failed to substantiate this wild allegations, as no proof or any instance of grudge being harboured against the appellant has been shown through any evidence or any other document.
The respondent's Corporation viz: Steel Mills is a very big concern in public sector where thousands of employees of various categories and grades are working there: There is no denial of the fact that of late, the Mill has been running in sound and beneficial manner. The only allegation levelled by the appellant that the Chairman of the Pakistan Steel is a Lieutenant Colonel and formerly belonging to Army, would not ipso facto, prove the allegations of discrimination unless, the appellant provides concrete and substantial proof and material in this respect. Hence, we cannot subscribe to such ambiguous and sweeping allegations, particularly when the appellant himself admits to be General Secretary of a particular union having operating within Steel Mills. Whatever the case may be, the allegations are that he option form in respect of Voluntary Retirement.
Scheme is bogus one and it has not been signed by him. Under such situation, we would like that so far the acceptance of option under Voluntary Retirement Facility by the appellant is concerned, this question needs further probe for which we are constrained to order that proper inquiry be made into such allegations, levelled by the appellant for which a period of three months is given to the management of the respondent's corporation.
4. The appellant is, therefore, re-instated in Grade-IV to participate in the inquiry/probe about the allegations in respect of option of Voluntary Retirement Facility. The payment of back benefits to the appellant will depend upon the result of such probe.
5. When this modification, the appeal of the appellant stands disposed of accordingly, with no order about costs.
8. Hon'ble Member Mr. Barkat Ali Baloch is of the view that the punishment given to the appellant by way of demotion from Grade-V to Grade-IV is proper and, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal.
The record reveals that a many as sixteen show-cause notices had been given to the appellant mentioning acts of indiscipline and misconduct, In view of this admitted position I agree with the reasons given by Hon'ble Member Mr. Barkat Ali Baloch that there is no merit in this appeal and as regards Voluntary Retirement Scheme I agree with Mr. Barkat Ali Baloch that he is reinstated in Grade-IV to participate in the inquiry/probe about allegations in respect of option of voluntary retirement. The benefits will depend on the result fresh probe/enquiry. In view of above-mentioned facts I make it clear I agree with the Hon'ble Member Mr. Barkat Ali Baloch. 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.