NASEER AKHTAR Versus PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN PRESS, KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing an application for reinstatement. The background of the case in brief is as follows.

2. The appellant was working as a Junior Binder with the respondent for about 20 years but he had not been provided any quarter for his family's residence. It is alleged that on 2‑4‑1990 he had taken possession of Quarter No.G‑14/6, situated at Pakistan Press Quarters Colony by breaking open the seal and the lock and soon thereafter applied for its allotment. However he was immediately suspended.

3. A charge‑sheet was served on him on 4‑4‑1990, which apart from the aforesaid trespass, included a charge of being very irregular in reporting for his duties. He had replied to the same but it did not dissuade the respondent from ordering an enquiry. On the receipt of the enquiry report he came to .be dismissed. It is alleged that the appellant had refused to accept the letter of dismissal with the result that it was published in the Daily `Nawa‑e‑Waqt', dated 16‑8‑1990.

4. Appraised of the news in the Paper, the appellant sent a grievance notice on 25‑8‑1990 and not being favoured with any reply, the petition was filed before the Labour Court.

5. In the reply filed by the respondent a contention was raised that the respondent‑Corporation under a Notification had been declared an Essential Service and having Statutory Rules of their own, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable to it. Reference was also made to a Notification by the N.I.R.C. The other contentions raised by the appellant came to be denied.

6. The petitioner was his own witness while Muhammad Faheemuddin Ahmad, the Manager of the Corporation and Mussarrat Alam, the Enquiry Officer, were the witnesses on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Labour Court, finding the main issue against the petitioner dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

8. A bare perusal of the record unmistakably establishes that the appellant had unauthorisedly taken possession of the quarter in dispute and though he had been called upon to vacate the same on the very day of occupation yet he had declined to do so. All that he had to say was that he had been waiting to be given a residence for all these twenty years yet nothing came his way. Fie maintained that there were repeated instances, when members of staff had occupied quarters on their own, and their possession had been regularised. He had the temerity to vent his feelings in this strain on every occasion. Once he had also given an undertaking to the effect that he would be vacating the quarter after the `Eid' celebrations but the promise had again been honoured only in the breach. The fact remains that he has remained in possession of the same till today.

9. The conduct of the appellant is simply reprehensible if not criminal. In a brazen faced way he has succeeded in maintaining his possession in spite of the fact that there was a report in the police also.

10. There was another charge against him that he was an idler and use to keep away from. his duties off and on. It was suggested to him in the cross- examination that in 1989, he had reported on duty for 65 days and there was hardly anything better in 1990. Admittedly no papers had been produced and nobody had spoken about it and therefore no construction can be placed on the same. This charge therefore cannot be said to have been proved.

11. However the first charge is very much there and the contention of the appellant that no witness was examined, during the enquiry or that the Enquiry Officer did not provide the copy of the complaint, in the circumstances of the case is neither here nor there. It might as well be mentioned that the Enquiry Officer states that the copy of the complaint has not been asked for.

12. I am satisfied that the Labour Court very properly affirmed the order of the dismissal (See Nasir Ali v. Agricultural Development Authority N.‑W.F.P: 1990 MLD 96 and Aftab Alam v. Inspector‑General of Police and another 1987 SCMR 1823).

12‑A. However before parting with the case I might point out that there is a solecism in the order of dismissal. It was passed by the Manager on 13‑6‑1990 but it was with retrospective effect, being the 2nd of April, 1990. The point was not raised but it has to be remedied. It is only the prerogative and the privilege of the Legislature and the Law‑Makers to pass any law giving it a retrospective effect from a specified date. Mr. Faheemuddin was therefore not competent to pass the order as he chose to do. The order was not served on the appellant personally. At any rate he came to know of it from the Press on 16‑8‑1990. If he has not received his salary for any day during this enumerated period, he would therefore be entitled to receive the same from the respondent.

13. With this modification only, the appeal stands dismissed.

H.B.T./2137/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.