1981 PLP 302 (PLC)

The points for determination in this case are (1) whether domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and principles of natural justice ; (2) whether the applicant has been reverted/dismissed in accordance with provisions of law. As regards the first point, it has not been established by the respondent that the same was ever held. It has been held by his Lordship Justice Zakaullah Lodhi in case entitled Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, IV Sind Labour Court, Karachi (1976 P L C 429), and the relevant part at page 431 reads as under :‑ "The question whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice could be taken into considera tion by the Junior Labour Court as well as Labour Court and while doing so they were perfectly within their jurisdiction." It is mandatory upon the employer to observe proper and legal proce dure in case of dismissal of an employee. The procedure prescribed is:‑ (i) Written notice of alleged misconduct is to be given. (ii) An opportunity to the workman to explain the charges against him is to be given. (iii) The employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against the workman. (iv) Approval of the employer is taken in every case of dismissal. Where this procedure is not adopted it will be bad in law and will amount to a contravention of the provision of Ordinance. In the present case the respondent neither did hold any inquiry nor appoint any enquiry officer. No evidence was led in support of the charge sheet levelled against the applicant whereas not to mention of cross‑examination of the witness/witnesses deposing against him, if any. Workman should be furnished with copy of inquiry report and also given opportunity to show‑cause against the order of dismissal. Moreover, it has been held in case entitled Ahmad Hadi Shah v. Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. (1976 P L C 444) that second show‑cause notice is necessary after conclusion of domestic enquiry and before imposition of penalty ; which again has not been done in the present case so far as the record of the case does reveal. As such the orders dated 30‑12‑1978 and 12‑12‑1979 since issued by the respondent whereby the applicant was reverted and dismissed respectively are B held to be bad in law, consequently set aside ; and the applicant is ordered to be re‑instated. As regards the second point for determination, the aforesaid discussion does reveal that the applicant has been reverted/dismissed not in accordance with the provisions of law. Section 25‑A of the Ordinance states :‑ "In adjudicating and determining a grievance under subsection (4), the Labour Court shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case." In view of the facts of the case it is hereby ordered that the respondent shall hold fresh inquiry. If on fresh inquiry the applicant is found guilty of misconduct, he will not be entitled to back benefits. If he is found not guilty, he will be so entitled. The proceedings to be completed within three months. With these observations the application is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.