1977 PLP 567 (PLC)

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A (4)‑Petition against dismissal of a workman‑Signed by Secretary, Trade Union ‑‑Contention that it must have been signed by dismissed worker, in circumstances, rejected. Mirza Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner. Waseem Ahmad Farooqi for Respondent. The petitioner, Muhammad Asghar was employed as a worker in the Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala. He was dismissed from service on 7‑4‑1976. He challenged the order of his dismissal in this petition filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The petitioner was arrested in a criminal casa on 2‑3‑

76. On 8‑3‑76 he sent and application from jail for leave with effect from 2‑3‑76 till his release on bail, The copy of this application is Exh. P‑

1. No action appears to have been taken on this application. On 10‑3‑1976 a charge sheet was framed against him to the effect that he was absent without leave for 48 days during the period from 1‑1‑75 to 31‑12‑1975. On 13‑3‑1976 another charge- sheet was framed to the effect that he was absent without leave for more than ten days with effect from 2‑3‑

76. Both these charge‑Sheets were sent at the home address of the petitioner. No reply was received. On 24‑3‑76 Mr. Akbar Abbas was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After taking the ex parte proceed ings the petitioner was found guilty on bath the counts by the Inquiry Officer.

3. The petitioner was released on bail on 17‑3‑1976. He reported for duty on 18‑3‑1976 vide application Exh. P‑

3. He was not allowed to resume duty. A second show‑cause notice was served on the petitioner. He furnished his explanation Exh. D‑9 on 31‑3‑1976. He denied the charges. He said that the case against him was instituted by the Management and as he was in jail, therefore, his application for leave should have been accepted and that his absence was beyond his control. The explanation was found unsatis factory and he was dismissed on 7‑4‑1976.

4. Admittedly, it was in the knowledge of the Management that the petitioner had been arrested on 2‑3‑

76. It was the duty of the Manag ement to serve the charge‑sheet on the petitioner in jail. No effort was made to serve the petitioner. He was not allowed to defend himself. The proceedings taken against him are in violation of natural justice.

5. Both the charge‑sheets were framed by the Labour Officer. He was not competent to issue these charge‑sheets. Toe Mills Manager was the employer in accordance with the provision of section 2(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1958. He was alone competent to examine the report of the Labour Officer and to issue charge‑sheets to the petitioner. Neither he issued the charge sheets nor he appointed an Inquiry Officer in this case. The entire proceedings are, therefore, illegal.

6. On behalf of the management a preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the petition has not been signed by the petitioner but it has been signed by the General Secretary of the Union, therefore, it was not competent. Under section 25‑A (4) of the Industrial Relations' Ordinance, 1969, the trade union has been authorised to take the matter to a Labour Court and in case the petition has been signed by the General Secretary of the Union it is competent. The objection has no force.

7. For the above reasons the petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to re‑instate the petitioner with back benefits.