1978 PLP 221 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15(4) Dismissal from service for charge of theft established in criminal Court‑Provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance not applicable to Management‑No guaranteed right of workman concerned violated by ordering his dismissal‑Order of re‑instatement passed by Junior Labour Court set aside and application under S. 2 5‑A, I. R. O. dismissed. Shabab Mufti for Appellant: Mohammad Aslam alias Liaqat Ali respondent was employed as Gate keeper in Habib Mahal Cinema, Kasur. He was involved in a case of theft and was convicted by the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class, Kasur for offence punishable under section 379, P. P. C. and sentenced to one month R. I. He was accordingly imprisoned in the Jail and was then absent from duty. His employer viz. the appellant in the meantime sent him a show cause notice on the charges of absence from duty and subsequently ordered his dismissal from service. The respondent on this release from Jail filed an application under section V‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore seeking re‑instatement with back benefits.

2. The respondent contended in his ‑application that as he was in Jail be was not afforded with an opportunity to show cause and was wrongfully dismissed from service.,

3. The appellant resisted the application.

4. The learned lower Court recorded the ‑ statements of Abdul Latif and Mohammad Aslam alias Liaqat Ali the respondent and ultimately concluded that proper procedure was not observed by the appellant before terminating the respondent and further observed that the respondent had also not been vigilant to inform the appellant about his absence which was due to unavoidable circumstances. In the light of these observation the learned lower Court,‑ vide its order, dated 21st May 1975 directed the re‑instatement of the respondent without back benefits. The said order has been impugned through the present appeal. .

5. The respondent appeared in this Court on one hearing but subsequently absented himself and ex parse proceedings had been ordered against him.

6. I have carefully gone through the records of the ‑case and I have also beard the learned counsel for the appellant under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. A Junior Labour Court can allow redress to a workman in respect of a grievance, which pertains to a right guaranteed or secured to such .a workman by or under any law, award or settlement. It is no where stated in the lower Court's order as to what guaranteed right of the respondent was violated by the appellant by ordering his dismissal from service. From the observation made by the learned lower Court in the impugned order it transpires that the learned lower Court was probably of the view that the appellant while dismissing the respondent failed to observe the procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In this case as stated earlier the respondent was employed as a Gatekeeper of Habib Mahal Cinema. Kasur. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the Management of the said Cinema employed 20 or more workmen, 1n the absence of such evidence the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to the establishment of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on the charge of theft, i. e., an offence involving moral turpitude and therefore the employer was justified in terminating his services. I would accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent before the learned lower Court under section 25‑A of the I. R.O., 1969.