1989 PL C 499 (PLP)

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 12‑‑Domestic inquiry‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Finding of fact recorded by Inquiry officer and a employer is not immune from scrutiny by Labour Court. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 12‑‑Labour Court is empowered to compensate entitled party and to deal with defaulting party when employer had failed to discharge its obligation towards employees‑‑Where employer has to justify dismissal of worker, best course for him would be to make available record of inquiry starting from allegations against employee, charge‑sheet, inquiry report, show‑cause notice and termination order‑‑Not necessary to produce all witnesses who have been produced during inquiry before Labour Court also but record could not be kept back without satisfactory reasons. (c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 12‑‑Re‑Instatement‑‑Except for inquiry report and reply of worker to charge‑sheet, nothing else was produced‑‑Courts below setting aside order of dismissal of worker and reinstating him on ground that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to worker‑‑Orders of reinstatement of worker upheld. This Constitutional petition has been instituted by the employer and is directed against an order of the Labour Court dated 17‑7‑1974, whereby the order of termination of service of the respondent was set aside and reinstatement with back benefits was ordered.

2. The respondent No. 1 was the employee who was proceeded against in the domestic enquiry for disobedience of the orders of the superior. The enquiry resulted in his dismissal but that dismissal order was set aside by the Labour Court on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report had not been supplied to the employee. The fact pointed out by the Labour Court and vitiating the termination order was made up in the proceedings picked up from that stage after the decision of the Junior Labour Court. It was rectified and once again on 29‑12‑1973 the employee was dismissed. He again challenged his dismissal on the ground that a second enquiry could not be held as the permission for starting it over again had not been obtained from the Labour Court. The Junior Labour Court held that the employer was justified in re‑starting the enquiry after removing the technical defect and that the requirements of law had been satisfied thereafter and dismissed the petition of the employee. An appeal was taken to the Labour Court which accepted it with the following observations:‑ "Misconduct of the appellant is said to be disobedience. Inquiry was held by Mr. Nazar Hussain, Administrative Officer of the mills, Record of the Junior Labour Court is before me. No official whom the appellant disobeyed has been produced. Only inquiry officer has appeared as a witness. Copies of the proceedings or statements of the witnesses have not been produced. Only inquiry report and photostat copies of the reply of the appellant are exhibited on the file. Appellant has stated in his written reply that he is being victimized for his trade union activities and a dispute is said to have been pending at that time when this inquiry was conducted. No permission from the Labour Court was obtained for dismissal of the appellant. For the foregoing discussion, I feel that the appellant is being harassed for nothing by these proceedings. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court and accept the appeal with back benefits from 29 12‑1973."

3. The employer now in the Constitutional jurisdiction contends that the finding of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the employer during the course of domestic inquiry was immune from scrutiny by the Labour Court and that the ground on which the dismissal order has been set aside, does not hold good.

4. The right of scrutiny cannot be denied to the Labour Courts. If they are discharging their statutory functions they must on a grievance Petition, oversee and examine the proceedings in the domestic inquiry. It is, the extent of its power to interfere which has certain known limitations. 1n the present case, the Labour Court has mainly gone by the fact that even the right to scrutiny in the domestic inquiry has been denied and this happened on account of the conduct of the employer. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unfortunately advancing that B position by contending that the proceedings could not be scrutinized. If that were the position and that be the argument, then it amounts to denying a jurisdiction to the Labour Courts which has been conferred by law on them i.e. to make inquiry into grievances of the Labourer to ascertain whether they have a legal basis or not and to determine whether they have received proper redress at the hands of the employer. In cases where the employer has failed to discharge its obligation towards the employees the Labour Courts have full powers to compensate the entitled party and also to deal with the defaulting party. If the petition did not lay before the Labour Court the proceedings of tile inquiry with a view to satisfy the Labour Court that it had been conducted in accordance with law, that findings recorded are on material properly brought on record, then if the decision goes f against it, the employer cannot make a grievance of it. It is the employer who holds all the cards in its hands inasmuch as the documentary evidence is in its possession. It is not possible for the employer to make every document on the inquiry file available to the Labour Court. The best course for the employer whether it is called upon to justify the dismissal order after an inquiry is to make available the record of the inquiry starting from allegations against the employees, the charge‑sheet the inquiry itself followed by the inquiry report, the show‑cause notice and the termination order. It will not be necessary to produce every witness who has been produced during the inquiry before the Labour Court also but the record cannot be kept back without satisfactory reasons. In this case except for the inquiry report and the reply of the employee, to the charge‑sheet, it has been noticed by the Labour Court that, nothing else was produced. It is not a case, therefore, where Constitutional jurisdiction can be of avail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed with costs. M.Y.H./C‑34/L Petition dismissed.