Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD. VS Respondent: GHULAM ALIHonorable Justice Muhammad Mian Qureshi
1977 P L C 311
1977 P L C 311
[IVth Labour Court Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Mian Qureshi, Presiding Officer
SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD.
versus
GHULAM ALI
Appeals Nos. 868 and 869 of 1973, decided on 30th June 1975.
Industrial dispute‑‑
----Dismissal for misconduct‑Accused charged of organising illegal strike‑Charge‑sheet not indicating whether actually workers struck work at persuasion of accused‑Charge‑sheet, in circumstances, held, defective prejudicing accused in their defence‑No show‑cause notice even served‑Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, not sustainable.
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.