Pakistan Case LawSUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD. Versus GHULAM ALI
This matter concerns two appeals filed by the Management of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited against the orders of the Junior Labour Court, Multan, which directed the reinstatement of two respondents, Victor Masih and Ghulam Ali, following their dismissal for allegedly organizing an illegal strike. The core legal question was whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondents was procedurally valid, specifically regarding the sufficiency of the charge-sheet and the necessity of a second show-cause notice. The court held that the domestic enquiry was defective on two grounds: the charge-sheet failed to clearly establish that the workers had actually struck work at the respondents' persuasion, and the respondents were denied a second show-cause notice after the enquiry officer's adverse report was received. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeals and ordering the reinstatement of the respondents without back benefits. The court established the principle that a domestic enquiry is vitiated if the charge-sheet is vague regarding the specific misconduct and if the employee is denied a second show-cause notice following an adverse enquiry report.
- Is a domestic enquiry vitiated if the charge-sheet fails to clearly specify the alleged misconduct?
- Does the failure to issue a second show-cause notice after an adverse enquiry report invalidate a dismissal?
- Can an employee be reinstated without back benefits if the domestic enquiry is found to be procedurally defective?
DECISION
The above. Dad two appeals have been filed on behalf of the Management of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited, Okara, against the order dated 7th July 1974 separately passed by the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan directing re‑instatement of the respondents namely Victor Masih and Ghulam Ali without back benefits. Since both the impugned orders are of common import and involve similar question to be determined the present order will dispose of both the appeals.
It was alleged against the respondent that they organised illegal strike on 31st January ]973 and got the work struck for some time on that day by the other workers. They were charge sheeted and referred to the Personnel Officer Iftikhar Ahmad for an enquiry as a result of which they were reported to have committed the offence and they were ultimately dismissed from service.
Two important defects have been noted in the domestic enquiry. Firstly it has not been made clear in the charge‑sheet if actually the workers of the mills struck work on 31st January 1973, at the persuasion of the respondents and secondly no second show‑cause notice were served on the respondents after the reports of the Enquiry Officer were received against them by the factory Manager. No doubt after issuing a charge‑sheet a number of witnesses were examined as prosecution witnesses against the respondents in the enquiry but they can fairly be said to have been prejudiced in the defence for want of a comprehensive charge‑sheets and second show‑cause notices. Because in the first instance it could not be clearly made out from the charge‑sheet whether the work was actually struck by the workers and the working of the mills suffered impaired for some definite time. It is also clear that the respondents were not given any chance of personal bearing a final report of enquiry adversely affecting them was made against them under the circumstances. I cannot make any exception in the impugned orders passed in both the cases. The appeals having no force are dismissed. The respondent would be deemed to grave been re‑instated without back benefits. The file may be consigned.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Mian Qureshi66 judgments