MOHARRAM KHAN Versus MAC DONALD LAYTON COSTAIN, HEAVY FOUNDRY & FORGED PROJECT, TAXILA, RAWALPINDI

ORDER

This order will also dispose of petition No. 18(236)/74, as it also arises out of the same incident.

2. Petitioners' case.-Petitioners Moharram Khan and Muhammad 3aleemwere employed as Carpenters with MacDonald Layton Costain Limited, Heavy Foundry and Forged Project, Taxila (the respondent), which has been declared under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as an employment to which the Act applies.

3. The admitted facts are that on 15-11-1974, the petitioners were served with a show-cause notice as it had been reported against them by their Sub-Overseer that they were neglectful in their work and when advised to be careful, they did not only misbehave but also indulged in arguments. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioners on 27th November 1974, wherein it was alleged against them that the two petitioners on 5411-1974, had refused to stop overtime work in spite of instructions given to them by Sub-Overseer. Although the other labourers left the site, the petitioners refused to do so and instead indulged in arguments. Again the next day, the petitioners started a dispute by refusing a helper nominated by the Sub-Overseer. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent held both the petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them, on the basis of which the services of the petitioners were terminated on 29-11-1974. The petitioners have con tended that the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet did not constitute misconduct as defined by the Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the complaint on the basis of which the said charge-sheet was issued to them was not supplied to the complainants and the enquiry against the petitioners was not conducted in accordance with the law. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the order of dismissal on the ground that it did not state the reasons for which the petitioners were dismissed from service.

3. Respondent's case.-According to the respondent the entire case against the petitioners became known to them in the enquiry proceedings and the petitioners having been given full opportunity to cross-examine the wit nesses and lead defence, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners. The respondents have also denied whether any violation of Standing Orders had taken place. As regards the order of dismissal, the respondent has contended that it had been clearly mentioned therein that the alleged mis conduct against the petitioners was proved; therefore, the order of dismissal was not bad in law.

4. Conclusions.-Although one of the allegations contained in the show-cause notice refers to neglect of work, the report of the Enquiry Officer does not show any evidence to that effect. Refusing to stop overtime work is certainly not a neglect of work. The other charges of misbehaviour and indulgence into arguments mentioned in the show-cause notice have been vaguely described therein and it has been rightly argued on behalf of the petitioners that they do not constitute the offence of misconduct as defined by clause (3) of Standing Order 15. In any case, .s they did not give sufficient notice to the petitioners to sufficiently defend] themselves at the enquiry as the said charges have not been adequately explained in the show-cause notice. Under the circumstances the dismissal, of the petitioners is unreasonable.

5. Consequently, I set aside the orders regarding their dismissal and direct that the petitioners be re-instated in service with full back benefits.