1998 PLP 41 (PLC)

S. P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1997. This appeal arises from decision of the Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi in proceedings under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by Zawar Hussain petitioner now respondent against M/s. Karam Ceramics Limited, the employers. 2. The facts in brief are that Zawar Hussain was employed as a helper in the Karam Ceramics Factory. It was found that he had committed misconduct by unauthorisedly closing down the machines and insulting and abusing the foreman, therefore, on 30-8-1986 Zawar Hussain was charge sheeted and a domestic enquiry was held against him. He was then dismissed. He filed grievance petition before the Labour Court and under orders of the Labour Court he was reinstated in service with full back benefits. The employers went in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal but ordered 50% back benefits to be paid to the worker. The Appellate Tribunal also observed that full back benefits had not been paid due to defective enquiry but if the employers so chose they could hold the fresh enquiry and if the worker was again found to be not guilty- full back benefits could be granted to him. So, a fresh enquiry was held against the worker and he was again found guilty on the same charges. He was, therefore, dismissed for a second time on the result of the second enquiry. The worker filed grievance petition before Labour Court No.2 against the second dismissal and the Labour Court Set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the petitioner worker to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. 3. It is the case of Mr. Faruq A. Ghani on behalf of Karam Ceramics Limited that order of the Labour Court setting aside the dismissal is based mainly on the ground that when once an enquiry had been held, the second enquiry on the same facts could not be ordered. This was not correct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1996 SC 596 in the case of Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited v. Muhammad Salim Butt. It was observed by the Supreme Court as under:- Nevertheless to observe that holding of fresh enquiry would not only be in public interest but also in the interest of the respondents themselves. If on the result of enquiry they are judge to be guilty and punished according to law, it would rehabilitate and restore public confidence in the appellant Bank and also promote discipline, efficiency and financial integrity amongst employees. If, however, the respondents have not found not guilty, they would not only get reinstated in service without any stigma of dishonesty attached to them but they would also be entitled to claim back benefits." 4. Mr. Faruq A. Ghani has also relied upon 1993 SCMR 105 National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in which it was held that: "The Bank could be promoted to hold enquiry once again against the respondent and the payment of back benefits would depend on the result of the enquiry." 5. Mr. Faruq A. Ghani has, therefore, argued that the second domestic enquiry on the same charges could be legally ordered. The learned Labour Court on this point alone, that the second enquiry was bad, ordered reinstatement of the worker with full back benefits. This order could not, be sustained. 6. Mr. S.P. Lodhi on behalf of worker has argued that the Tribunal had passed the final orders upholding the decision of the Labour Court but in end allowed second enquiry since the first enquiry was defective and the enquiry report had not been produced before the Labour Court. Mr. S.P. Lodhi has pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal in the previous order had ordered fresh enquiry only for the purpose of payment of 50% back benefits that had been withheld. The question of reinstatement was a closed question in the judgment of the Tribunal and cannot be reopened, so the conducting of the second domestic enquiry was in respect of back benefits and not commission of the misconduct. The order of the Tribunal presided over by Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, J., had observed" if any enquiry is held after reinstatement of the appellant and he is exonerated in the enquiry the balance of legal dues be paid to him, but in the second enquiry the respondent has not been exonerated. So the question of payment of 50% back benefits only passed by the Tribunal would remain. He stands reinstated under the order of the previous Tribunal and there in no ground for his dismissal for a second time. There was no warrant for setting aside the Tribunal judgment of reinstatement as a result of any fresh enquiry. If result of the fresh enquiry is against the worker he should forego payment of the additional 50% back benefits but the question of reinstatement has not to be reopened as a result of any such enquiry. A.A./221/Lb.S Order accordingly.