MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT
The petitioner by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction, has assailed the order dated 23‑3‑1983 passed by the Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and the order dated 31‑3‑1981 of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l.
2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant when he was served with a charge‑sheet dated 5‑1‑1976 and after an inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 24‑8‑1978. Then the order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court by filing a grievance petition which was accepted vide order dated 31‑3‑1981 and the petitioner was re‑instated without back benefits. The petitioner as well as the employer, respondent No.3 filed two separate appeals which were, however, dismissed on 29‑11‑1981. This led to the filing pf two constitution petitions, one by the petitioner and the other by his employer, respondent No.3 and ultimately both were accepted and the matter was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for disposing the appeals afresh. The Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 23‑1‑1983 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The appeal of the employer, respondent No.3 was, however, accepted. The petitioner then filed writ petition No.696 cf 1983 but the same was allowed to be withdrawn and was dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner Wanted to seek clarification of the order dated 23‑1‑1983. This application was dismissed on 3‑4‑1983. This led to the filing of the present constitution petition, with the prayer that the order dated 23‑1‑1983 be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and order dated 31‑3‑1983 be quashed to the extent that it had not allowed back benefits. The petitioner further sought a direction to reinstate the petitioner with back benefits.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as by the Labour Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on 18‑2‑1987 it was pointed out to the Court that the petitioner disappeared after two days of his joining the post and despite several letters written by the respondent he has not joined his duties since then. As this assertion was controverted, then this Court directed the petitioner to appear in person. The employer, respondent No.3 also moved C. M. No.855 of 1987 for recalling the order dated 27‑4‑1983, which reads as under:‑
"Arguments heard.
Prima facie no question of second inquiry arises against the petitioner unless and until the order of dismissal has been set aside. In the instant case, this has not been done. Oh the contrary, the learned Chairman of the Punjab Labour Tribunal has clarified in his order dated 3‑4‑1983 that:‑
"For the holding of re‑inquiry setting aside of the dismissal order is not necessary".
5. Prima facie, I am not inclined to agree with this observation. This is a fit case for suspending the operation of the impugned orders to the extent that the petitioner shall stand re‑instated in terms of the order of the Labour Court, but the question of back benefits and his continuance in service shall be subject to the result of the final inquiry. In case the petitioner does not participate in the inquiry proceedings, the respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to move this Court for vacation of the stay order.
To this extent, the stay application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent added that the petitioner was summoned repeatedly to appear in the inquiry but he failed to participate and in his absence the enquiry was completed. He added that the petitioner is a practising lawyer and for that reason did not join his post and is carrying the present litigation in one Court or other in order to grab monetary benefits by pressurising the employer. In view of these submissions the statement of the petitioner was recorded.
6. Muhammad Saleem petitioner in his statement admitted that he did take out licence for practicing law from the Punjab Bar Council but added that he has been conducting his own cases. He further admitted that he did participate in the inquiry proceedings and that the employer can proceed with the enquiry report in accordance with law .
7. I have gone through the documents attached with C.M. 855 of 1983 which show that notices were repeatedly issued to the petitioner l for appearance and the petitioner attended the office of the Enquiry Officer but left the office leaving an application wherein it was stated that he was proceeding to Islamabad for joining his duty and that he will have the defence statement recorded later and that his defence witnesses may also be summoned. On the next day a telegram sent from Lahore by Muhammad Saleem was received wherein indecent language was used and the enquiry was dubbed as mala fide. It appears from these documents that the petitioner attended the office for four days only, duties were assigned to him but instead of attending office he sent applications for leave every month. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from seeking equitable relief in exercise of extra‑ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In any case, the petitioner at this stage cannot challenge the order dated 31‑3‑1981 of respondent No.2 as on an earlier petition this Court had remanded the case for rehearing of the appeal. Again claim to back benefits cannot be laid as the petitioner as per his own statement had obtained licence to practice law, first in 1981 and then in 1983 and was thus, engaged in the profession of law. Moreover, petitioner as well as his learned counsel have conceded that the enquiry having been completed, the employer may now proceed to pass the order in accordance with law. It will be pertinent to note that in this concession the admission that the enquiry was completed ex parte after providing him opportunity to associate is inherent. This aspect of the matter is therefore, no more under challenge. The employer may now proceed to pass order on the basis of the enquiry report in accordance with law within one month. .
8. For the reasons given above, this Constitutional Petition therefore, fails and is dismissed with cost of Rs.500.
M.Y.H./M‑557/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.