1988 PLP 68 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 19th April, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 16‑7‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1 Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent workman of the respondent establishment since March, 1983, as a piping Helper. That the workers organized themselves and formed a union for seeking redress of their grievances, the appellant was also elected as a Member of it. The case of the appellant was that as a measure of victimization on account of the trade union activities, he was issued a show‑cause notice dated 16‑5‑1983 for a false charge of absence from duty; but, as the reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore a domestic enquiry was conducted against him. Thereafter the appellant submitted the present grievance petition.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition mainly on the legal objection that as the appellant was an employee of Agha Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation, therefore, the provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were not applicable to him, so the petition was liable to be dismissed. As regards the merits of the case, the misconduct of remaining absent from duty un-authorized has fully proved in a fair, proper and lawfully held domestic enquiry, so he was rightly dismissed and cannot maintain his grievance petition.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the Labour Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Ismat Mehdi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment was not present have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. S. P. Lodhi has submitted that as the respondent establishment was a Limited Concern, therefore, only a District or Manager of it could legally contest the petitions and/or any other person, duly authorised; but, no such authority was executed by the respondent establishment in the present case in favour of one Viqar Ahmed, Labour Officer in the respondent establishment. Further, this Viqar Ahmad was neither an employer within the meaning of the provisions of Industrial & Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, nor a properly and duly authorised person, either to a point any/enquiry officer or to issue an alleged charge‑sheet or to issue a dismissal order, or even to engage/appoint any Lawyer/counsel etc. on behalf of the respondent establishment, therefore, all proceeding against the appellant, has been taken by an admittedly in competent person and, therefore, they have became infructuous and not sustainable. As regards the merits of the case, it is proved from the record that it was not proper, lawful and fair. Therefore, the enquiry report on such type of enquiry cannot be relied upon and the subsequent dismissal from the service of the appellant also cannot be ‑maintained. Hence, set aside.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I set aside the impugned order and would allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with fifty per cent back benefits, forthwith. M. Y. H./1006/Lb.S Appeal accepted.