LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus IRTIZA HUSSAIN , Nemo

This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 9817, 9819 and 9820 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.

2. Syed Irtiza Hussain Shah, Zulfiqar Ali Shah and Muhammad Ilyas were working in the employment of the petitioner when their services were terminated as a result of enquiry held against them on the charges of fraud and forgery. They challenged the dismissal of their services by filing separate applications under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which were accepted by the Labour Court on 16th of February, 1991 and the employees were directed to be reinstated but without any back benefits. The petitioner as also the respondents/employees felt aggrieved by the order. Consequently, three appeals by the petitioner and three appeals by the respondents/employees were filed before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which vide its judgment dated 19th May, 1.991 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and while accepting the appeals of the employees allowed them full back benefits. The order of the Labour Court as also the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has been assailed in these petitions.

3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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. 2924 of 1986 wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1 in all the three petitions.

4. As regards the merits, suffice it to say that both the Courts below have taken the view that the petitioners had not examined the Enquiry Officer as a witness before the Labour Court and, therefore, it was found that no evidence worth the name was available to prove the allegations against the respondents/employees. It was also found that no charge‑sheet was served upon the respondents/employees and the suspension order Exh. P.1 could not be considered as a charge‑sheet as there were no allegations mentioned therein. Some other irregularities were also found to have been committed during the course of enquiries. The impugned orders are well‑based and call for no interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

As a result of what has been stated above these petitions are found to be without any force and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./L‑28/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.