1984 PLP 1249 (PLC(CS))

Abbas Mirza for Appellant. Tariq Masood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 6th March, 1984. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 22nd June, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. I, Lahore, whereby Abdul Rauf (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service, permitting fresh enquiry from the stage illegality was committed, to be concluded within three months. The question of back benefits was left to depend upon the result of the fresh enquiry. The United Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits challenging the permission of fresh enquiry. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegations against the respondent for which he was dismissed from service were that he committed such acts against rules that facilitated the running of a parallel bank in the appellant's bank branch. The charges are detailed in the charge‑.sheet Exh. P‑2/1‑3 and need not be recapitulated. The only ground on which the learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent with permission to the appellant to hold fresh enquiry is that no second show‑cause notice was given, nor copy of enquiry report was supplied to the respondent.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no provision of giving second show‑cause notice and delivering copy of enquiry report. Reliance has been placed upon P L D 1981 S C 225 but the same is not germane to the case in band as the same is' based upon Standing Order 15 (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, whereas in the present case paras. 258 (4) and (5) of the Wage Commission Award is applicable. The provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) are quite different and distinguishable from paras. 258 (4) and (5). The latter sub. para. (5) relates to the enquiry, submission of enquiry report and the reply of the employee concerned. The relevant portion is reproduced below :‑ The report together with the employee's statement shall be laid before the authority who shall then consider the matter, .." The "employee's statement" to be obtained under sub‑para. (5) is different from the explanation of the employee referred to in sub‑para. (4). The employee's statement is the reply in relation to the enquiry report. Since there is no provision of personal hearing, therefore, the statement of employee in relation to the enquiry report is to be laid before the Authority. No express provision of second show‑cause notice is made but the intention is clear that unless the employee has been delivered the report, he is not in a position to give statement in relation to !he said report. Para. 258 (4) (5) of the Wage Commission Award and Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1965 when put in juxta position make it clear that there is no provision of second show‑cause notice and delivering copy of enquiry report to the employee concerned in Standing Orders 15 (4) whereas such a provision exists in para. 258 (5). Taking of statement/reply from the employee after the enquiry report is prepared is necessary in order that the employee should know what oral or documentary evidence of the persecution and what grounds have found favour with the enquiry officer. He should also know on what grounds the evidence led by him in defence has been discarded by the enquiry officer. Unless he is supplied the copy of the enquiry report, he is not in a position to submit his statement reply in relation to the report. No only in view of the demand of natural justice but on account of the provisions made in sub‑para. (5) of para. 258, delivery of copy of enquiry report and taking of reply from the employee are necessary. The learned lower Court thus rightly held that o7 account of the absence of second show cause notice and delivery of copy of the enquiry report, the dismissal order was not sustainable.

4. So far as cross‑appeal of the respondent is concerned, suffice to say that it is the discretion of the Court to allow fresh enquiry and it cannot be said that in the present case the discretion was not exercised judiciously. Since the allegation constitutes serious misconduct, permission of fresh enquiry from the stage of non‑delivery of second show‑cause notice and the copy of the enquiry report, has rightly been given. When fresh enquiry is permitted, back benefits always depend upon the result o the fresh enquiry.

5. As a result, I do not find any force in both the appeals and dismiss A. E. Appeal dismissed.