1977 PLP 214(2) (PLC)

(b) Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Act (LII of 1952)‑‑ ‑‑ S. 6 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969),S. 25‑A‑Limitation‑Redress by dismissed Workman ‑ Limitation prescribed in S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Not applicable in case of application by National Industrial Relations Commission under S. 6 of Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952‑Lapse of 3 to 4 months in filing applications before National Relations Commission, held, not fatal. Nizarn Ali Khan for Applicant. Shafiq Ahmad for Respondent. The two applicants whose names have been mentioned above, were the employees of K. E. S. C. They were dismissed from services on 23rd January 1976 on the charges of misconduct. Against his dismissel, applicant Farzaud Ali submitted his grievance petition to the respondent Corporation on 17th February, 1976 and on getting no reply he filed the present application on 12th May, 19'

6. Applicant Wajid Ali filed his application on 17th April, 1976, after his grievance petition dated 29th January, 1976 was not replied to by the respondent. Corporation.

2. The main stand taken by Mr. Nizam Ali Khan the learned counsel appearing for both the applicants is, that their dismissal is illegal as the applicants wore neither supplied with the copies of enquiry report nor they were given any show‑cause notice after completion of the enquiry. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore and others (1) (1) 1973 S C M R 455, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the principles of natural justice required that before his dismissal, the workman should be furnished with a copy of the Enquiry report and should also be given an opportunity to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him. Clause (4) of Standing Order 15 requires that first, the workman should to informed in writing about the alleged misconduct second he should he giver, an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him; and third, the approval of they employer must be obtained before taking any final action against him I. Mr. Shafiq Ahmad Khan the learned representative appearing on behalf of, the respondent bas very frankly conceded before me that after holding of the enquiry against the applicants neither copies of the enquiry report were supplied to them nor they were given any show‑cause notice to enable them to explain the circumstances appearing against them, The enquiry at which the applicants were proved guilty was in fact one of the circums tances, and a very important one, alleged against them.

3. The learned representative appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation has drawn my attention to Muhammad Shamim v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1) (1) 1975 S C M R 46, in which the point agitated before the Supreme Court was that a copy of the enquiry report should have been supplied with the second show‑cause notice. The Supreme Court, however, came to the conclusion that since the result of the enquiry was communicated to the workman concerned along with the show‑cause notice, no illegality was committed.

4. In the end, I have also considered the question of laches, if any involved in this case, since the application of Wajid Ali was filed after about a lapse of nearly three months and that of applicant Farzand Ali even a month later. Section 25‑A of the I. R. O. provides for a period of limitation within which an application before the Labour Court can be filed by an aggrieved workman. If the same rule is applied, the present application would become time‑barred, because in that case, the applicants should have filed these applications within two months from the expiry of the period for which they were supposed to wait for the reply from the respondent Corporation, which according to subsection (a) of section 25‑A is fifteen days But since these applications have been tiled under section 6 of the Essential Services Act the provisions of section 25‑A of the I. R. O. are not applicable. Under the circumstances, the time taken for fling of these applications will not be fatal.

5. In view of the above circumstances, I recommend that both the applicants be re‑instated in service with full back benefits. The respondent however, will be at liberty to take any action against them for the alleged misconduct but that should be done strictly in accordance with the law.