1990 PLP 748 (PLC)

Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Ch. Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 calls in question the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.1) dated 29th March, 1989 whereby the order of the Punjab Labour Court No. V dated 14th January, 1985 was set aside.

2. Masood Ahmed Khan respondent No.2 was working as a Guard in Pakistan Railway when he was removed from service by order dated 13th September, 1986 passed by Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway, Peshawar Cantt. After serving a requisite notice grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was filed by respondent No. 2 challenging his dismissal from service. The Punjab Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed his petition holding that the petitioner was rightly found guilty by the Enquiry Committee on the charges of theft of B.P.T Book and misappropriation of Railway fare to the detriment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this decision, respondent No. 2 riled an appeal which was accepted by respondent No.

1. The ground which prevailed with the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for accepting the appeal was that Enquiry Officer had been appointed by the petitioner without considering the reply given by respondent No.1 to the charge‑sheet served by the petitioner. The other grounds raised on behalf of respondent No. 2 were however, repelled by the Tribunal.

3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no rule having the force of law has been cited in support of the view that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have examined the reply to the charge‑sheet before ordering enquiry against respondent No.

2. The further contention of the learned counsel is that such a ground was not raised by respondent No. 1 and as such could not have been adverted to. The learned counsel for the respondents disputes the correctness of this statement but he too asserts that the impugned order is not sustainable as the various contentions raised on behalf of the respondent have neither been considered nor decided by the Tribunal. Both the learned counsel pray that the impugned order of respondent No.1 be set aside and the appeal filed by respondent No.2 be remanded for decision afresh on all the questions. This appears to be a fair arrangement in the circumstances of the case and is accordingly accepted. In view of what has been stated above this petition is accepted, the impugned judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No.1) dated 29th March, 1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by respondent No.2 shall be deemed to be still pending and shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y.H./D‑57/L Case remanded.