MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARAN WALA

ORDER

1. This is an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, preferred against an order dated 21-5-1974, passed by Raja Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lyallpur, on a petition of the appellant, filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by which order his petition was dismissed.

2. Brief facts rising to this appeal are that the appellant was a Tally Clerk with ;he respondent since 18-8-1970. He was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct. On his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, i.e. was re-instated with back benefits on 12-2-1973, for the reason that there was a technical defect in the inquiry. Manage ment came in appeal with the only prayer that as the appellant was re instated for a technical defect therefore, he should not be allowed back benefits and in this respect they placed reliance upon 1973 P L C 146, a judg ment by his Lordship Mr. Jamil Asghar, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Appeal of the Management was accepted. Management again made an inquiry from the stage of the defect and again dismissed him. He again went to the Junior Labour Court and have come in appeal against his petition's dismissal.

3. Learned representative of the appellant has vehemently stressed that no second inquiry could be held without the orders of the Labour Court. Labour Courts never gave any direction for another inquiry, therefore, no inquiry could be held against him.

4. Misconduct of the appellant is said to be disobedience. Mr. Nazar Hussain, Administrative Officer of the mills, held inquiry. 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 ran 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 A from the Labour Court was obtained for dismissal of the appellant.

5. For the foregoing discussion I feel that the appellant is being harras ed 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.