1979 PLP 161 (PLC)

A. K. M. Idris for the Worker. Date of hearing : 4th October 1477. These are cross‑appeals against the order of the Labour Court passed on an application made by Raja Ashiq Ali on an application under sec tion 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.

2. Raja Ashiq Ali was in the permanent employment of Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd. He was said to have committed some act of misconduct. He was therefore, charge‑sheeted by Mr. A. Baloch on behalf of the Management. Raja Ashiq Ali submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Consequently, an inquiry was held and he was found guilty. A show‑cause notice was issued and subsequently he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this he served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that Ashiq Ali was found guilty of the charge of misconduct after due inquiry and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the action which was taken against him.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. One of the contentions raised on behalf of Raja Ashiq Ali was that Mr. A. Baloch was not an "employer" and he was not competent to issue the charge‑sheet. Conse quently, the entire domestic inquiry was vitiated and the action taken was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it was pleaded that Mr. A. Baloch was the Factory Manager at the time when he issued the charge‑sheet and, therefore, he was competent to do so. Both the parties produced certain documents. On the assessment of the evidence, the Labour Court entertained the view that it was not proved that Mr. A. Baloch was the Factory Manager or that he had any authority to issue the charge‑sheet and, therefore, the domestic inquiry was not sustainable. On the basis of this conclusion, he ordered re‑instatement with liberty to the Management to hold fresh inquiry. He further did not allow back benefits and made them dependent upon the result of the inquiry which was to be re‑held.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the parties filed appeals.

6. At the outset, I would like to point out that the Management had produced certain photostat copies of documents to prove that Mr. A. Baloch was the Factory Managar at the time when the charge‑sheet was issued by him. The learned Presiding Officer did not rely upon these documents as the originals had not been produced. It seems that this was anticipated by the learned counsel for the Management and he, therefore, made an application on 3rd November, 1976, to the Labour Court to summon the original records from the Labour Department and copy of this was also delivered to Raja Ashiq Ali. This application appears at page 563 of the record of the Labour Court. Ashiq Ali admitted before me that he had received the copy or and it bears his signature with the date thereon. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Presiding officer did not care to pass any order on this application. Since the application was made, it was his primary duty to have passed an order. Unquestionably it was an important document and could not be ignored I do not say that he ought to have granted this application but he ought to have disposed of this application one way or the other and if the application was rejected, the propriety of the order could be challenged in appeal and it would have been for this Tribunal to decide the objection. Thus a material irregularity has been committed and this vitiates the impugned order.

7. In result, I allow the appeal filed by the Management and remand the case for disposal in accordance with law after passing a suitable order on the aforsaid application. In case the application is granted, the other side shall be given an opportunity to lead any further evidence that may be decided by him. In view of this order, the appeal filed by Raja Ashiq Ali has became infructuous and as it is dismissed.