1977 PLP 335 (PLC)

Rashid Ahmad for Appellant. M. Jamil for Respondent. Abdul Haleem the appellant was employed as Accounts Clerk in the Glaxo Laboratories, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. On 9th January, 1974, he was dismissed from service by the respondent viz. the Manager Glaxo Laboratories Limited, Ferozepur Road, Lahore on the charges of theft and dishonesty, inasmuch as, he allegedly absconded with company's cash amounting to Rs. 21,329.22 and also on the charge of wilful absence from duty from 9th April, 1973 to 22nd November, 1973.

2. On 1st February, 1974, the appellant filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lahore seeking his re‑instatement with back benefits. He alleged that the order of his dismissal from service was null and void, inasmuch as, no proper enquiry was conducted and he was not afforded with reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

3. The respondent res1sted the appellant's petition before the learned lower Court. Parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned Court below.

4. After considering the parties evidence, the learned lower Court vide its detailed order, dated 22nd February, 1975, concluded that before passing the order of dismissal the respondent had fully complied with the relevant provisions of the Standing Order Ordinance Consequently the petition filed by the appellant under section 25‑A of I. R O. was dismissed. The said order dated 22nd February 1975, of the learned Court below has been impugned through the present appeal.

5. I have very carefully gone through the records of the case and the parties have also been heard at a considerable length. It is evident from oral as well as documentary evidence on the records that the appellant was duly charge‑sheeted. After obtaining his reply to tire charge‑sheet he was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on tire date mentioned in the written order made in this behalf. The appellant's counsel replied that the charge‑sheet was meaningless, during the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant and that there was no provision in law on earth which could render any person to reply for 2 enquiries viz. departmental as well as judicial. Another opportunity was provided to the appellant to appear before the Enquiry Officer again the same stand was taken. The management of the employer was thus forced to proceeds ex parse against the appellant. He was found guilty as a result of enquiry proceedings. Show‑cause notice was then served on the appellant. He was provided with the copy of the enquiry report and was given a final opportunity of personal hearing. He again reiterated that since the respondent had instituted a criminal case against him he could not be proceeded against departmentally. Ultimately the appellant was dismissed from service. From the aforementioned fact it appears that only stand taken by the appellant for his non‑appearance before the Enquiry Officer and for non‑submission of reply to the show cause notice is that since he was being proceeded against judicially, inasmuch as the employer instituted a criminal case against him he could not be proceeded against departmentally. This plea of the appellant is absolutely baseless. In Muhammad Shamim v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited and another the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment dated 12th September, 1974, has categorically held, that it was open to the employee to prosecute a workman on a criminal charge in the criminal Court and it was also open to him to take disciplinary action against the said workman.

6. In the light of what has been said above, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.