1977 PLP 314 (PLC)

Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Second show‑cause notice‑Requirement of ‑Domestic enquiry held‑Enquiry report received by competent authority‑Letter sent thereafter to accused workman by competent authority to submit any further evidence before him‑Such letter, held, cannot be termed anything else than second show‑cause notice Objection that no second show‑cause notice was ‑ given, in circumstances, held, not sustainable. Appellant in person. Noor Ahmed for Respondent. DECISION Two separate appeals have been filed by Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Shafiq, workmen. Nippon Bobin Company, Sahiwal, against the order, dated let January, 1974 dismissing their application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter mentioned the Ordinance. The appellants were attributed misconduct of inciting the workers for illegal strike and of persuading the workers to adopt the go‑slow‑policy in the dis posal of their work in order to procure compliance of their demands. They were charge‑sheeted by the Management and ultimately dismissed on 15th October, 1973 on the basis of the evidence produced against them. Previous ly the applications were made to the Junior Labour Court and the appellants were re‑instated in service with the direction that fresh enquiry might be made against them and the order of dismissal dated 15th October, 1973 was passed by the Management against them on the basis of the said order of the Court. Since both involve common question to be determined, the present decision will dispose of both the appeals. This case came up for hearing on 7th June, 1975 and it was found that the record of the domestic proceedings was not available on the file and the same was said to have formed a part of another connected case of Maqbool Ahmad v. Nippon Bobin Company, Sahiwal. This case was separately disposed of and was consigned, though the said proceedings were perused by Junior Labour Court for the disposal of the present cases of the appellants. A threadbare discussion was made on the material points for determination and it was found that domestic enquiry proceeded on proper lines. The appellants were duly charge‑sheeted and the evidence led against them culmi nated in an elaborate enquiry report after giving the appellant due opportunity of defence. The learned lower Court based its finding of the said enquiry proceedings in dismissing the appellants' petitions. However, during the hearing of appeal on the last date the absence of the second show‑cause notice attracted the notice of the Court and the learned counsel was called upon to meet the possible objection on behalf of the appellant who were not represented by any counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the Photostat of the letter, dated 9th October, 1973 from Managing Director, to the appellants stating to the effect that baying been found guilty in the enquiry, the appellants were given further opportunity to produce any evidence that they might like to give before him to absolve them of the charge. This notice was pleaded to be considered the second show cause notice. It was at this juncture that the domestic enquiry proceedings had to be adverted to and were found missing from the file. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that if the enquiry report submitted on 8th October, 1973 was the final report against the appellants then the letter, dated 9th October, 1973 could have no connotation other than that of second show‑cause notice. I was at difference with learned counsel on the point that the report submitted on 8th October, 1973 was the final enquiry report as the dismissal order, dated 15th October, 1973 seemed to indicate the receipt of final report other than the report, dated 8th October, 1973. The learned counsel was so sure of his stand that he undertook to get the relevant file despatched to this Court from the learned Labour Court No. 2, Lahore within a few days if the same was called by giving a short adjournment. The request being granted the appeals were adjourned and now the relevant file has been made available for final arguments today. A perusal of the record of domestic enquiry reveals that there is no final enquiry report other than the one submitted on 8th October, 1973 wherein the Managing Director had called upon the appellant to give evidence, if any, in their defence in view of having been found guilty in the enquiry against them. I have closely examined the contents of letter, dated 9th October, 1973 which emphatically called upon the appellants to submit any further evidence in their defence after the receipt of enquiry report and the said letter could scarcely be placed in any category other than that of a second show‑cans notice. This fact on the record further fortifies the finding of the learned f tower Court which cannot be accepted on any ground, whatsoever. Accordingly the impugned order being upheld the appeal is dismissed.