MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD Versus NIAMAT MASIH

Respondent No.l, Niamat Masih, was an employee of the petitioner Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. The said respondent was dismissed from his service on 15-6-1989 under the provisions of Punjab Local Service (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1981 by the Mayor on the ground that the respondent remained absent from his duty from 6-7-1988 to 22-4-1989. The respondent filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for iris reinstatement in service. The grievance petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on 20-5-1990 on the ground that the respondent could not explain his absence from duty for such a long period. The decision of the learned Labour Court was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal which was heard and accepted by the learned Appellate Tribunal on 17-11-1990. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was not served with an enquiry notice and as such his dismissal order was without lawful authority. The said judgment has been assailed by the petitioner through this Constitutional petition before this Court.

2. Learned counsel contends that respondent No.l was dismissed from service in accordance with law inasmuch as he was guilty of misconduct because he was found absent from duty. No other point was argued by the petitioner. This point was elaborately dealt with by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 17-11-1990. It is established on record that enquiry notice was ,,ever given to respondent No.l before proceedings against him for his dismissal from service were initiated. The learned Tribunal held that there was ,A no proof on the record to show that service of the enquiry notice was effected upon respondent No.l. No evidence whatsoever was led to show that receipt Cx.R.5 related to the enquiry notice in that behalf. In this view of the matter, dismissal order passed against respondent No.l was declared a nullity in law. Learned counsel was unable to point out that before proceeding further, enquiry notice was served upon the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the competent forum on the basis of evidence. This being so, no exception can be taken to the well-reasoned judgment by the learned Tribunal against the petitioner. Even otherwise it is well-settled that no writ can issue in aid of I injustice. Learned Law Officer has relied on the rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Federation of Pakistan v. Haji M. 'Saifullah (PLD 1989 SC 166), Nawab Syed Ronaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) and Tufail Muhammad v. Raja M. Zia Ullah Khan (PLD 1965 SC 269). Respectfully following the rule laid down in the above cases, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment. The writ petition is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./M-59/L Petition dismissed.