DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE Versus ABDUL REHMAN SHEIKH , Nemo

This judgment shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 2671 and 2672 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.

Abdur Rehman Sheikh, respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 2671 of 1991 was employed as Stenographer in the Lahore Development Authority while Nazar Muhammad, respondent No.l in W.P. No. 2672 of 1991 was working as Senior Clerk. Their services were terminated by the petitioner on the ground that they had committed misconduct by replacing the annual confidential report of Malik Nazar Muhammad. This order dated 30th March, 1988 was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, by filing applications under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court dismissed both the applications on 7th October, 1969 holding that they were guilty of misconduct.

3. Against the order of the Labour Court Abdur Rehman Sheikh and Nazar Muhammad have filed two separate appeals which were accepted by a common judgment by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 28th January, 1991 and the respondents were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The ground which prevailed with the Labour Appellate Tribunal was that the respondents/employees had not been served with the charge‑sheet within the time prescribed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and that this question though raised before the Labour Court was not decided by it.

4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that 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 of the petitioner. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has been found to be without any merits by this Court in the connected matter namely W.P. No. 2924 of 1986 wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1 in both the petitions.

5. So far as the merits of ‑the case are concerned, the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is unexceptionable. It is found as a fact that although on 29th July, 1987 the employer had come to know of the misconduct and further that the respondents were suspended on 3rd of August, 1987 the charge‑sheet were served upon the respondents/employees on 15th September, 1987. On these facts the Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly concluded that there has been a manifest violation of Standing Order No. 15(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

Accordingly these petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./D‑9/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.