1999 PLC 351 (PLP)

Muhammad Islam, A.M.P., Representative of the Municipal Authorities. The learned Labour Court Gujranwala had on 12‑8‑1996 accepted the grievance petition of Zoor‑ud‑Din Aasi, petitioner, and ordered his reinstatement in service, with all the back benefits. He was a sanitary 'jamadar', working with Municipal Corporation Gujaranwala, and had been suspended from service on 2‑I 1‑1992. He had made grievance of the fact that his period of suspension had abnormally been prolonged, and no punishment pursuant upon a regular enquiry having been inflicted on him, he could not be kept in state of suspension over an unending period.

2. Aasi was placed under suspension on 2‑11‑1992 and till the date of the impugned order, dated 12‑8‑1996, rendered by the learned Labour Court, no enquiry had been held against him, for establishing the alleged charges. It was, as such, in the fitness of things that the suspension order be undone and full emoluments be paid to the employee, for the job he had been performing. The Authorities of the Corporation having allegedly failed to act in accordance with law, the employee was constrained to lodge a complaint under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. The complaint was filed on 19‑9‑1996, in which all the concerned officers of the Corporation were arrayed as respondents, the alleged contemnors; and subsequently on 30‑10‑1996 the revision petition was preferred by the Municipal Corporation Gujranwala against the employee, Zahoorudin Din Aasi. Probably, the Authorities of the Corporation had become conscious of the fact that they could not possibly resist the move made by the employee for bringing an end to the state/period of suspension, unless and until they could succeed in getting the learned Labour Court's order, dated 12‑8‑1996 set aside. By this judgment I shall be disposing of both the aforesaid petitions.

4. The learned counsel representing the Municipal Corporation takes up the plea that an Enquiry Officer had been appointed and the employee had been proceeded against, but the gentleman unfortunately expired, without submitting a report. A prayer has been made that the case be remanded, so that the process that had been lauched against the employee is resumed or re activated, and the employee should not be allowed to go scot free, unless and until he is found not guilty. Obviously, however, this plea or prayer cannot be permitted to have sway, the reason being that the order of suspension had been passed years ago on 2‑11‑1992, and even if the Enquiry Officer had breathed this last, the competent Authority should not have gone into a state of hibernation. The Authority, however, seemed to have woken up after a deep slumber, and that to when a move was made by the employee, as already said, for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings. Another important aspect of the litigation has to be kept in mind. In the course of the proceedings in the Labour Court, the Corporation had not adduced any evidence, despite having been afforded multiple opportunities for the purpose. The evidence was closed and no attempt was made to have the order annulled or recalled. The employee's version remained without any rebuttal whatever. It is indeed woeful and regrettable that no attention was paid to the plight of the poor employee, who had long before been suspended from service. Neither he was reinstated (following long drawn suspension), nor was he driven out of service, pursuant upon a finding of guilt having been recorded against him. It will not be denied that a worker or an employee cannot be kept under suspension over an indefinite period and suspension also must be ordered, not without existence or availability of cogent and over‑whelming evidence, prima facie furnishing proof of commission of some serious irregularities or pronounced acts of misconduct on his part. Well, if there exists 'inculpatory' material and the same justified infliction of penalty, major or minor, an enquiry must ensue, and that too without any amount of delay so that the employee is also enabled to establish his innocence and the establishment is provided an opportunity to bring on record 'adverse' material against him, without which one must not and cannot be kept in state of suspension, except for a limited period, as stipulated by law.

5. Without commenting on the nature of the allegations levelled against the worker and the probable punishment, the same, on proof, may entails, I would proceed to set aside the impugned order, of suspension, agreeing with the reasoning of the learned lower Court, which is neither fallacious nor in apt, misconceived or misdirected. The impugned decision calls for no interference by this Court, inasmuch as no irregularity or illegality has been committed by the learned Court below, in passing the impugned order, which does not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity. The revision petition having no force, what ever, is hereby rejected; and the contempt petition merits acceptance, considered from any angle. The employee shall be reinstated in service forthwith. If the Authorities still do not honour or abide by the learned Labour Court's order, dated 12‑8‑1996, and the pronouncement made by this Tribunal today, they would be exposing themselves to penal action for such conduct, which will be treated as contumacious. For initiation of further proceedings, if necessary, the employee may make a fresh complaint/contempt petition to this Court, at any time.

6. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chairman, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala, for compliance. H. B. T./949/LB/(Trib.) Contempt petition accepted.