2006 PLP 477 (PLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J

This Judgment shall decide FAO/69/2004 and FAO/70/2004, as these proceed against a common Judgment passed by the learned Labour Court, Multan.

2. On 24-9-1995, the respondent filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. According to him, he was employed as a Clerk by the appellant. While he was posted at Sher Shah Depot and was selling products of the appellant to the consumers, he was directed, that in order to increase the volume of the sale he should sell on credit as well. Accordingly sales were made on credit. The amounts used to be recovered and deposited. In the year 1995, some of the dealers did not make payments in time and he reported the matter to the concerned officer. In March, 2005 his pay was stopped when he protested, he was told that he should recover the amount from the dealers and then the salary will be paid. He recovered further amounts and made the deposits. It was on 24-5-1995 that upon' reading an advertisement in the daily Nawa-i-Waqt he came to know that his services have been terminated on 1-3-1995. He accordingly served a notice on 19-8-1995. According to him the order dated 1-3-1995 is illegal and void as he was neither served " any charge-sheet nor given a chance to explain and, of course, no inquiry was conducted. According to him, the termination order does not contain any reason within the meaning of law. He accordingly claimed re-instatement with full back-benefits. In its written statement, the appellant objected that the provision of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 are applicable to the appellant organization and the I.R.O. is not applicable. It was also stated that the respondent is sole employee at the said establishment and the (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. It was further stated that the termination is not result of an industrial dispute and the grievance petition is not maintainable and that the petition is barred by time. On merits it was stated that the respondent was not permitted to sell the products on credit. It was not alleged that any charge-sheet was served or the inquiry conducted. The learned Labour Court recorded evidence of the parties and vide Judgment dated 12-5-2001 accepted the grievance petition and directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with 20% back-benefits. FAO/69/2004 has been filed by the said employer praying that the said Judgment be set aside while FAO/70 of 2004 has been filed by the said employee claiming that full back-benefits be awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has re-asserted the said objections noted above. According to him in view of the application of the said Act, 1952, the respondent could not approach the Labour Court; the grievance notice having been sent through counsel is invalid. For this latter contention, reliance is placed on the case of Syed Muhammad Hussain v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco-Co. and others (PLD 1980 SC 80). He' has also tried to argue that the termination was not effected because of any industrial dispute and the petition was not competent. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies on the case of Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman and others (1989 SCMR 1549) to urge that the application of the said Act of 1952 does not debar an employee from seeking remedy in the Labour Court. Reliance is also placed on the case of Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and two others (1994 PLC 553), regarding the notice he points out that it bears signatures of the respondent. As to the said 3rd contention, he refers to the provisions of section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1965 to urge that the grievance petition was maintainable.

4. I have gone through the records of the learned Labour Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now so far as the said argument based on the provision of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, is concerned, the same is completely answered by the said Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman and others (1989 SCMR 1549). So far the grievance notice is concerned, I find that its copy Exh.P2 is on record. I may further note and it does bear the signatures of the respondent. I may further note here that this grievance notice was also replied vide Exh.R6 yet the original has not been produced by the appellant. It will, therefore, be deemed that Exh.P2 is the correct copy of the original notice. Nothing therefore turns out on the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. So far as the said 3rd contention of absence of an industrial dispute is concerned, section 25-A,. I.R.O. vests a workman with the right to take the grievance to a Labour Court in case of dismissal, removal or termination of service.

6. Now it is an admitted position that no charge-sheet was served and no inquiry was conducted. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to document Exh.R1 to urge that the respondent had admitted his guilt and as such no charge-sheet or inquiry was necessary. I have examined the said document. I am afraid the said document does not constitute confession of any guilt. It only contains promise to pay amount mentioned there. Now Exh.R5 has been produced by the appellant itself. In this termination letter not a single reason had been stated as to why the services of the respondent are being terminated. It only states that the services are being terminated on a reasonable excuse. As to what the said excuse is, there is no explanation either in Exh.R5 or otherwise.

7. Now so far as the question of back-benefits is concerned, respondent stated in the witness box that since the time of his termination he is jobless and not gainfully employed anywhere. Not a single question has been put in cross-examination to, challenge the statement and, of course, there is nothing in rebuttal. This being so the respondent was entitled to be reinstated with full back-benefits.

8. For the reasons stated above, FAO No.69/2004 is dismissed while FAO ,No.70/2004 is allowed inasmuch as the Judgment of the learned Labour Court is modified and respondent is awarded full back-benefits. No orders as to costs. The records of the learned Labour Court be returned back immediately. F.B./S-45/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.