This petition is directed against the orders dated 10-5-1976 and 10-9-1975 passed respectively by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The said orders came to be passed in the background of the following facts.
2. The respondent No. 3 was employed with the petitioner as a fitter in the mills. On 6-5-1975, he was found to be absent from duty without permission and on being questioned about his absence he misbehaved and insulted Abdul Razaque, converting master of the mills. The petitioner issued charge-sheet dated 8-5-1975, which was replied on 10-5-1975. An enquiry into the matter was instituted and the respondent No. 3 was informed about the same on 13-5-1975. Simultaneously an Enquiry, Officer was appointed and necessary intimation was given to the respondent. The respondent appointed one Akbar, Office Secretary of the Union, to act as his representative in the enquiry proceedings. On receipt of the enquiry report dated 20-5-1975, a Second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 4-6-1975. This was replied by him on 6-6-1975, and after a personal hearing, a dismissal order dated 19-6-1975, was passed against him. The respondent served the petitioner with the grievance notice on 29-6-1975, which was replied on 12-7-1975. The respondent asked the petitioner to furnish him with a copy of the second show-cause notice on 15- 7-1975, alleging that he had lost the same. He again requested on 27-7-1975, for a copy of the same stating that it was required for filing an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance on 14-8-1975, which was accepted by the respondent No. 2 as per impugned order dated 10-9-1975. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned 1st respondent on 10-5-1976.
3. Mr. Khurshid Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned orders were based on complete misreading of evidence and there was nothing to show that the inquiry conducted against the respondent was unfair or partial. According to him the respondent was furnished full opportunity to defend himself and the order of dismissal was passed in accordance with law.
4. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel referred to the statement of the 3rd respondent which he had made before the Labour Court. It was admitted by the respondent that he had participated in the inquiry and was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. He also admitted that he had examined three witnesses in defence and had duly signed every page of inquiry proceedings. At first he denied that Muhammad Akbar did not participate in the inquiry but later he changed his statement and stated that Muhammad Akbar had actually acted as an observer. He later contradicted himself by saying that the defence witnesses were forced not to depose on his behalf although they were present in the inquiry proceedings. The respondent categorically admitted to have received the second show--cause notice to the inquiry report. He also admitted that a personal hearing was granted to him. It was, however, alleged by him that the inquiry was partial. The copies of the inquiry proceedings have been filed in this petition which confirm the above facts. The respondent No. 2, in his impugned order held that it was doubtful if a second show-cause notice had actually been sent to the respondent. This finding is against the record. As a matter of fact, the respondent No. 3, had admitted the receipt of the second show- cause notice in his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and the learned Junior Labour Court even did not bother to read the same. 'The learned first respondent also mis--read the evidence on this point because according to him the petitioners had failed to supply copies of second show-cause notice and inquiry report to the respondent in spite of requests. These requests, as mentioned above, had been made after the passing of the order of dismissal. The main, point requiring consideration was at to whether the domestic inquiry conducted in the matter was fair and impartial and this issue stood resolved by the admission of the 3rd respondent himself before the Junior Labour Court. In the circumstances, there is no tota of evidence to justify the finding of the learned 1st respondent that the defence witnesses had been threatened by the Management with dire consequences and had refrained from deposing the true facts. This finding is nothing more than just a surmise and conjecture. The two impugned orders show that while the order of the Junior Labour Court was based on certain grounds, the learned 1st respondent had proceeded to decide the matter on another set of grounds, which justify the grievance of the learned counsel that the matter was decided on grounds which the petitioner was not called upon to reply and the case was thus changed from stage to stage.
5. Mr. Shahanshah Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, simply relied upon subsection (5) of section 25-A of the I. R. O., while lays down that in adjudicating and determining the grievance the Labour Court shall go into all the facts of the case, and contended that the two Labour Courts below were justified in passing the impugned order. The power I contained in the section confers powers to go into the facts and not to, ignore the facts as done in this case. Besides, the Labour Courts have to act in a judicious manner and the normal procedure of confining the parties, to the case set up by them cannot be departed, to the disadvantage of the other side.
6. In the result, the petition succeeds and 'the impugned orders are quashed as having been passed without lawful authority, but there will be no orders as to costs.