LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ , Nemo

This judgment shall dispose of W. P. No. 3361/89 and W.P. 3362/89 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.

2. Muhammad Razzaq, respondent No. 1 in W.P. 3361/89 was working as a Chowkidar while Muhammad Aslam respondent No. 1 in W.P. No.3362/89 was a Patwari in the employment of the petitioner. Their services were terminated by the petitioner on 27th July, 1989. They challenged their removal from service by fang petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, both of which were accepted by the Punjab Labour Court No. II, Lahore on 29th June, 1988 and the respondents are directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. The petitioners were however, permitted by the Labour Court to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh against the respondents, if they so desired.

3. The order passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which were dismissed on 13th December, 1988.

4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that as neither the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the workmen in the employment of the petitioners, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has been found to be without any substance by this Court in the connected matter namely W.P. 2924 of 1986, wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1.

5. So far as the merits are concerned, it was found by both the Courts below and is even not disputed by the petitioners that no regular enquiry was held into the charges against the respondents/employees. The charges against the respondents of not having reported unauthorised encroachments made, were found to be incorrect on the basis of the evidence on the record. These findings of the Courts below are fully supported by the material on the record and call for no interference by this Court.

In view of the above these petitions have no force and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./L‑26/L Petition dismissed.