2000 P L C 347

[Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal]

Before Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Chairman
ADMINISTRATOR, METROPOLITAN CORPORATION, JINNAH,
HALL, LAHORE and another
versus
Agha NAEEM IQBAL and another
Revision Petition NO.LHR-11, Applications Nos. 79 and 543 of 1998, decided on 22nd
February, 1999.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---
----Ss. 25-A, 22-A(12) & 38(3-a)---Removal from service---Suspension of operation of order of
removal---Jurisdiction---Non-compliance of order of Court---Employee was placed under
suspension on account of certain allegations of misconduct and corruption, but Labour Court, on
filing grievance petition by employee suspended operation of order, of suspension and stayed
further proceedings---Employer despite the stay order, removed employee from
service---Employee filed contempt application against employer--- Employer had contended that
Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction as no restraint
order could be issued by any labour forum. against course of criminal proceedings initiated
against employee---Validity---Legal forum could have passed an order, which may prima facie,
be not sound or legally sustainable, but aggrieved person could not suo motu assume that same
was not binding on him and could well be ignored .and even - disobeyed---Even an ostensibly
stupid or infirm or unsustainable order got to be assailed or got rescinded has by having recourse
to competent higher forum and so long as such an order would hold field, its compliance had to
be made and it could not be permitted tip be disregarded in any way---Wilful disregard of Court
orders and flagrant defiance on part of employer could not be permitted.
Ch. Bashir Ahmad and Faiz Muhammad Bhatti for the Corporation.
Ahmad Awais for the Employee.
JUDGMENT
By a consolidated judgment I would be disposing of all the three above-captioned inter-linked
matters, the facts and circumstances all being common. On account of certain allegations of
misconduct and corruption, a number of officials of the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore,
including Agha Naeem Iqbal, Assistant Superintendent (Internal Audit), were placed under
suspension, -by an order passed on 14-9-1997. Agha Naeem Iqbal on 10-1-1998 filed a grievance
petition under section 25-A, read with section 22-A,(12), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969,
the prayer being that the Administrator and the Chief Corporation Officer be summoned and
directed not to commit any act of unfair labour practice and not to act upon the show-cause
notice, the charge-sheet, and the suspension order issued against him, in October and December,
1997 and January, 1998 (7-1-1998), which developments could be treated as acts of unfair labour
practice, further proceedings pursuant upon which must not be taken. The learned Labour Court
No.2, Lahore, on entertaining the petition, on 10-1-1998, suspended operation of the suspension
order, dated 7-1-1998 and stayed further proceedings against the official. Contempt petition was
filed by the official on 17-1-1998; and on the same day, the, Chief Corporation Officer was
directed to make appearance in person for explaining non-compliance of the Court's order, dated
10-1-1998. The official had been served with a notice of personal hearing on 12-1-1998 and that
order also was suspended. As the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings
launched against the officials were not stopped, another contempt petition, was filed by Agha
Naeem lqbal on 13-3-1998. The learned Labour Court, by an order, dated 16-3-1998, suspended
operation of the order, dated 10-3-1998, by which the official was removed from service.
2. It is to be pointed out that the proceedings, as already said, against the official, had remained
in progress, and the final order of his dismissal from service had been passed on 10-3-1998. This
Tribunal had entertained the revision petition filed on 24-1-1998 against the official by the
Administrator and the Chief Corporation Officer of the Corporation, and had posted the petition
for final arguments to 3-3-1998. On the contrary, two contempt petitions were moved against the
Authorities of the Corporation by Agha Naeem Iqbal, first on 20-3-1998 and subsequent one on
31-10-1998. It was directed on 20-3-1998 that no further adverse action would be taken against
the complainant. The contempt petitions filed by the official against the Authorities in the lower
Court were intended to be withdrawn, as was signified by the official. By way of second
contempt petition dated 31-10-1998, moved here, Mr. Khalid Sultan, former Administrator,
M.C.L. was sought to be summoned for personal appearance, but the request was not readily
acceded to observing that such eventuality might arise afterwards (after the officer submitted his
reply and the same was considered).
3. I have carefully gone through the contents of the contempt petitions, and all the proceedings
conducted against the official, besides the replies of the respondents arrayed as alleged
contemnors, who have surprisingly been maintaining that the learned lower Court as also this
Court had acted in the matter without jurisdiction, as no restraint order could be issued by any
labour forum against the course of criminal proceedings, initiated against anybody, including a
municipal official. I am constrained to observe, at this junctuxe, that this stand-point of the
Administrator and the Chief Corporation Officer could not possibly be endorsed or upheld. A
legal forum may have passed an order, prima facie not sound or legally sustainable, but the
aggrieved person cannot suo motu assume that the same was not binding on him or could well be
ignored and even disobeyed. Even an ostensibly stupid or infirm or unsustainable Court order
has not to be assailed or got rescinded, by having recourse to competent higher forum, and so
long as such an order-holds the field, its compliance had to be done and it cannot be I permitted
to be disregarded in any way. Against the Labour Court's order dated 10-1-1998, the Authorities
of the Corporation had approached even the Hon'ble High Court; by way of filing a writ petition
(No. 2970/98), but the
same was withdrawn on 27-2-1998, when it was brought to the notice of the Court that a revision
petition assailing the operativeness/propriety of the said order had also already been filed. Agha
Naeem Iqbal also had gone up to the High Court, challenging the order, dated 14-9-1997, by
filing a writ petition (No.21927 of 1997). On behalf of the Authorities, it was undertaken, on
appearance before Mr. justice Tanvir Ahmad Khan, that the suspension order issued against
Agha Naeem Iqbal would be withdrawn, although the proceedings against him under the
Efficiency and Discipline Rules would remain in progress. The Hon'ble High Court made an
explicit direction that the Authorities would proceed within the four corners of law. Proceedings
against the official were not discontinued, and ultimately when he was found to be guilty of the
charges, according to the Authorities, he was suspended and then dismissed from service.
4. In the revision petition it was maintained by the learned counsel for the Corporation that
participation in the trade union activities did not give a licence to an employee to commit
misconduct and the establishment could not be restrained from proceeding against him under the
relevant rules and regulations. On the contrary, however, it is urged that the Authorities too could
not be said to have a free hand to proceed against an official and that too in a mala fide and
vindictive manner, along lines marked vividly by personal vendetta. The Authorities had chosen
to bypass the orders of both the Courts, the Labour Court and this Tribunal in a grossly
disobedient and disparaging way, uttering even insulting derogatory and contemptuous remarks
against the Courts, their powers and the way of their working. The tone/tenor of the
Administrator was undoubtedly arbitrary and arrogant, in the highest degree.
5. Against this background, it appears that, the Legal Advisor of the Corporation has been
consulted by the administration, headed now by the Lord Mayor, who has passed the orders on as
recently as 19-2-1999, advising compliance with the Court order so that penal action by the
Courts could be avoided. I find, on perusal of the record that even the Enquiry
Officer/Authorized Officer had been changed, at certain stage, on entertaining the employee's
apprehension about discriminatory and unfair attitude on their part. Learned Special Judge
Anti-Corruption also had on 22-8-1998 admitted the accused employee to bail, treating the
prosecution cases against him to be one of further probe. The Director, Anti-Corruption
Establishment, Punjab had, on 28-10-1998, on finalization of the investigation, decided to drop
the case. These developments unmistakably indicated that the allegations against the official, as
contained in the F.I.R. dated 5-8-1998, might not be that serious or sinister, truthful and weighty,
and he might have been involved to the case to an under-hand, collusive, and mischievous
manner. He states, he had remained on physical remand, and then behind the bars, over a good
length of period, and he had been subjected to worst type of persecution and physical torture, and
the same had also brought in its, wake mental, agony and public humiliation of the highest order.
6. Anyhow, now that the learned Legal Advisor has furnished an unequivocal opinion in favour
of abandoning further proceedings against the officials continued crusade against him may well
be treated as contumacious am "pardonable. It has been opined that it would be advisable to
implement the Labour Court's orders and reinstate the official in service from the date of his
dismissal, i.e. 10-3-1998, which order stands suspended by the Labour Court. Willful disregard
of the Court orders and flagrant defiance on the part of the Authorities cannot evidently be
permitted; and I would order accordingly. As advised by the Legal Advisor, the Authorities
should tender unqualified apology for their perniciously abnoxious conduct and realistically
endeavour to make amends for their wrongful acts. The official must be reinstated in service,
with effect from the date of his dismissal, and be treated to be continuing in service, although
disciplinary proceedings may continue, but from the stage those were stayed or stopped by the
learned Labour Court, as affirmed by this tribunal.
7. Taking a lenient view, 1 would not direct initiation any action against the officers including
Mr. Khalid Sultan, former Administrator now Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, but the
Authorities presently at the helm of the affairs should be sincere in complying with the Court
orders and not adopt hostile or malicious posture towards the official.
8. The revision petition and the contempt petitions are disposed of as above. The grievance
petition pending in the lower Court will proceed and be decided on merits in due course.
H.B.T.946/Lab.(Trib.) Order accordingly.