1971 PLC (PLP)

All that section 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 required was that the decisions of the Court under section 26 or section 37, and the awards of the Court shall be given in writing signed by 'the Chairman. It does not require that the order should also mention that the Chairman had con sulted the Members of the Court. Accordingly the award is not bad on the ground that it does not show on the face of it that the Chairman had consulted the members constituting the Court. A. Majeed for Appellant. Azmatullah Khan for Respondent, Date of hearing: 30th June 1970. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chairman, 1st West Pakistan Industrial Court, and Karachi, dated The 23rd of March 1970. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 37(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), whereby the learned Chairman granted permission to dismiss the Appellant: The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.

2. The appellant was charge‑sheeted on various counts, namely, ‑for forgery, misappropriation and misbehaviour. Mr. Mohammad Ilyas, who found the appellant to be guilty of all the charges, held the enquiry.

3. Before the learned Court on behalf of the respondent, Mr. Nazir Hussain, Time-Checker, and Mr. Mohammad Ilyas, Enquiry Officer were examined. The appellant examined himself in defence. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and ‑in keeping with the principles of natural justice. He granted the permission to dismiss the appellant.

4. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, very 'strenuously contended that the appellant did not commit any, forgery or committed any misappropriation inasmuch as Exh. P. 3 (T. L. 6 No. 18832), admittedly, bears the signatures of Nazir Hussain and Ameeruddin. The appellant paid the cash according _to T. L. 6 and, therefore, he cannot be said to have committed ‑any forgery or misappropriation. There is no force in this contention. According to the prosecution; the appellant is said to have produced Exh. P‑1, before Nazir Hussain, Nazir Hussain stated that it did not bear his signature and that it was a forged one. Exh. P‑1, supported the case of the Road Transport Corporation. There is nothing on the record to show, much less to prove that Nazir Hussain and Ameeruddin had ‑any enmity to falsely implicate him in such a serious charge. The enquiry held by Mr. Mohammad Ilyas was fair and impartial' one. The appellant. was found to be guilty of forgery, misappropriation and also for misbehaviour.. In these circum stances, the permission granted by the learned Chairman to dismiss the appellant cannot be challenged.

5. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Majeed that the decision a~ of the Court does not disclose that the learned Chairman had consulted the Members of the Court. All that section 15 of the repealed Ordinance required was that the decisions of the Court under section 26 or section 37, and the awards of the Court shall be given in writing signed by the Chairman. It does not require that the order should also mention that the Chairman had consulted the Members of the Court I would told that the award is not bad as it does not show on the face of it that the Court had consulted the Members constituting the Court. The appeal is dismissed. Order announced