1970 PLP 163 (PLC)

This is an appeal against a decision of the learned Chairman of the West Pakistan Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore, dated 31st March 1969, whereby the learned Chairman allowed the application of the respondent under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance). The respondent, Sikandar Afzal, was employed as an Assistant Electrician in the Road Transport Corporation, Lyallpur. He was charge‑sheeted for disobedience and for not performing his duties properly.

2. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court set aside the Enquiry Report on the following grounds :‑ (1) He held that the Enquiry Officer was subordinate. >he Works Manager, who had made a report against the respondent. (2) That the Enquiry Officer was influenced by the Inquiry Report of the Works Manager. In this case, the District Manager had appointed the Works Manager himself as the Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report finding the respondent guilty. Later‑on, it was brought to the notice of the District Manager that the Works Manager having himself made a report against the respondent was not competent to hold the enquiry. The District Manager, thereafter, appointed, Muhammad Afzal Mirza, the Assistant Works Manager, to be the Enquiry Officer. The District Manager, while appointing 'Muhammad Afzal Mirza, as Enquiry Officer, bad also sent to him the report of the Works Manager. (3) That the District Manager passed the order dismissing the respondent without giving him personal hearing. (4) Lastly, the enquiry was set aside on the ground that the District Manager was prejudiced against the respondent.

3. After hearing Mr. Naseerul Hasan, the learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. Nazeer Ahmad Naz, for respondent, I do not see any sufficient ground to set aside the order of the learned Chairman of the Industrial' Court. There is, only one point that requires consideration. The ground which the learned Industrial Court set aside the Enquiry he should have, given an option to the Department to enquiry by an independent person, if it did desire. I would maintain the‑order of the learned Industrial Court, but modify it to this extent that it would be open to the Department to hold fresh enquiry by an independent person. In this case, the Enquiry Officer should be appointed not from the Works Department, but from the Traffic Department. The respondent should be re instated forthwith. He must get his wages from the date that the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court passed the impugned order and up to the date he is re‑instated. So far that the pay from the date that he was dismissed and the date when the Court ordered big reinstatement is concerned, this will depend upon the result of the enquiry, if the Department holds it. If as a result of the enquiry the appellant is exonerated, ho will ire entitled to back pay.