1997 PLP 350 (PLC)
PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF
| Citation | 1997 PLP 350 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 350 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 350 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 350 (PLC) (PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed for Appellants.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1996.
- 3. Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate for the Printing Corporation has argued on behalf of the Corporation that the Labour Court could not go into the facts of the case leading to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and substitute her own opinion. But the very purpose of section 25‑A petition is for the Labour Court to go behind the domestic enquiry and reconsider all the facts and give its own findings. The learned Advocate for the respondent has quoted the decision of the High Court of Sindh in the case of Textile Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. It was held in that case that Labour Court seized with grievance application can go behind domestic enquiry and examine facts of the case to see whether decision of the Enquiry Officer was biased or partial words "shall go into all the facts of the case" in subsection (5) clearly signified legislative intent to provide double check, one forum of domestic enquiry to be held by employer and other in form of a judicial determination by Labour Court itself (PLD 1979 SC 207 followed (reported in 1983 P L C 721).
- 5. The next objection raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the employer and not the Manager can issue a charge‑sheet; against an employee but under Order 2(c)(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance employer includes a Manager and the charge‑sheet issued by the Manager is equally valid.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after serving him charge‑sheet and holding enquiry against him on charge that he, alongwith others put up banners and photograph in favour of a political party, raised slogans inside the premises of employer Corporation‑‑ Enquiry held against employee was defective as Assistant Director of employer Corporation had appointed himself as Enquiry Officer and he dismissed employee from service on his own report‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, had rightly concluded that enquiry against employee was partial as Enquiry Officer had himself acted as Authority dismissing employee from service‑‑‑Employer Corporation had also failed to prove allegations on basis of which employee was dismissed from service ‑‑‑Co -employee who was also dismissed on same allegations, was reinstated in service‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances rightly ordered re‑instatement of employee holding that domestic enquiry against employee was partial and illegal PLD 1978 SC 207 and 1983 P L C 721 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 5th May, 1996. This appeal by the Printing Corporation of Pakistan is directed against the order of the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, allowing a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 of worker Muhammad Asif and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits.
2. Respondent Muhammad Asif was employed as a labourer in the Printing Corporation and later on he was promoted as Lower Division Clark. A group of workers put up banners and photograph in favour of a political party, raising slogans inside the Printing Corporation premises. These banners were pulled down under orders of the Manager when the workers became rowdy and raised slogans against the management. A charge‑sheet was drawn up and served on the workers including Muhammad Asif, Amiruzzaman and others. One Atta Muhammad, Assistant Director of the Printing Corporation acted as the Enquiry Officer found Muhammad Asif guilty and directed his dismissal from service. Muhammad Asif filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. against Printing Corporation for termination of his service. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge‑sheet was not specific, the enquiry was partial and defective. She accordingly reinstated Muhammad Asif with all the back benefits.
3. Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate for the Printing Corporation has argued on behalf of the Corporation that the Labour Court could not go into the facts of the case leading to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and substitute her own opinion. But the very purpose of section 25‑A petition is for the Labour Court to go behind the domestic enquiry and reconsider all the facts and give its own findings. The learned Advocate for the respondent has quoted the decision of the High Court of Sindh in the case of Textile Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. It was held in that case that Labour Court seized with grievance application can go behind domestic enquiry and examine facts of the case to see whether decision of the Enquiry Officer was biased or partial words "shall go into all the facts of the case" in subsection (5) clearly signified legislative intent to provide double check, one forum of domestic enquiry to be held by employer and other in form of a judicial determination by Labour Court itself (PLD 1979 SC 207 followed (reported in 1983 P L C 721).
4. It has then been argued by Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad for ( Printing Corporation that the enquiry was conducted under the Rules of the Corporation and it was in order. The Rules of the Corporation were admittedly not the Statutory Rules though Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed thinks that they are the Statutory Rules overriding the Standing Orders Ordinance but he has not been able to produce any such Notification.
5. The next objection raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the employer and not the Manager can issue a charge‑sheet; against an employee but under Order 2(c)(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance employer includes a Manager and the charge‑sheet issued by the Manager is equally valid.
6. The most important defect in this domestic enquiry in that the Assistant Director Mr. Atta Muhammad appointed himself as the Enquiry Officer and on his own report he dismissed the employee from service. Thus he was prosecutor as well as the Judge and he also acted as the authority dismissing the employee. The learned Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the enquiry was partial.
7. On the facts, two prosecution witnesses were examined. No one has deposed that he saw respondent Muhammad Asif putting up the banners or raising solgans. All that they have said is that he was also present amongst workers who had put up these banners. Mere presence cannot make him liable for the charges enumerated in the charge‑sheet. The other worker Amiruzzaman who was also present and who too was dismissed has since been reinstated in service.
8. In view of the above discussion I find that the learned Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was partial and illegal.
9. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and, the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./123/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.