NADEEM LQBAL KHAN Versus FUJI COLOUR PAKISTAN LABORATORY
The petitioner, a former Laboratory Assistant, challenged the termination of his services for alleged misconduct involving the preparation of obscene prints. Following his termination, the petitioner accepted his full and final settlement dues without protest but subsequently filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement, finding the termination procedurally flawed. However, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, while ruling in favor of the petitioner on other grounds, held that his acceptance of terminal benefits precluded him from challenging the termination. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, affirmed the employer's position, ruling that the petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' under the law after accepting full settlement. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal's findings regarding the authorization of the appeal and the legal effect of accepting terminal dues. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the acceptance of dues bars a former employee from challenging the legality of their termination under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
- Does the acceptance of terminal dues in full and final settlement without protest bar an employee from challenging the termination of their services under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction set aside a finding of fact recorded by a Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the authorization of an appeal?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was employed as Laboratory Assistant in the laboratories of respondent No.1. There was an allegation against him that he had misconducted himself by preparing prints from obscene negatives. His explanation was called. In his reply, he admitted that he had prepared the prints in question but stated that he had done so under the direction of his superior. On the basis of. his admission, his services were terminated on 1‑9‑1983 and he was paid all his dues and the amount of provident fund by way of full and final settlement. After making some departmental representations, he filed an application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, before the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore. On 2‑10‑1985, the application was returned to him on the ground that it had not been personally presented by him. He refiled the application in person on 3‑10‑1985. Subsequently, the Labour Court condoned the delay. His grievance was that he was a confirmed employee, yet his services had been terminated without serving him with a show‑cause notice or holding an inquiry.
2. The application was resisted by respondent No.1. Its case was that since the petitioner had admitted that he prepared the prints in question there was no need to hold any inquiry; further, as the petitioner had received all his dues including the provident fund by way of full and final settlement without any protest, he could 'not be called an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 25‑A, ibid.
3. By an order, dated 23‑8‑1986, the Labour Court held that the admission attributed to the petitioner did not constitute admission of misconduct and that receipt of all dues owing to him did not debar him from challenging the order of termination of services. Accordingly, it accepted the petition, and directed the re‑instatement of the petitioner with back benefits. It also observed that it was still open to respondent No.1 to hold a regular inquiry against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct and thereafter pass appropriate order.
4. From the decision of the Labour Court both respondent No‑1 and the petitioner preferred appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order in so far as it directed the re‑instatement of the petitioner with back benefits while the petitioner was dissatisfied as it permitted respondent No.1 to hold an inquiry into the charge of misconduct against him. The learned Tribunal held that as the petitioner had received all his dues, he was debarred from challenging the order of punishment awarded to him. Nevertheless, it dismissed the appeal of respondent No.1 on the ground that it had not been preferred by a competent person and accepted the appeal of the petitioner with the observation that as the time limit for serving a charge‑sheet on him had expired, no inquiry could now be held.
5. The legality of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal was challenged by respondent No.1 in writ jurisdiction before the High Court. The High Court accepted. the writ petition after holding that the appeal had been presented before the learned Appellate Tribunal by a person duly authorised and that the petitioner was not competent to approach the Labour Court after receiving all his dues in full and final settlement without any protest. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court.
6. In support of this petition it is urged that it was not open to the High Court to set aside the finding of fact recorded by the learned Appellate Tribunal that the appeal of respondent No.1 had not been presented by a duly authorised person. Further, the High Court was also not right in taking the view that receipt of his dues by the petitioner debarred him from approaching the Labour Court. In support of the second contention, reliance has been placed upon Climax Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Shabir Ahmad 1985 P L C 400 and Ghulam Nabi v. M/s Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. 1984 P L C 359.
6. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing at an early date on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.
M.I. /N‑62/S Leave granted.