Law: Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

Section: 33

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 25, 199

  Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010)------S. 33--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 25 & 199--Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, (VI of 1968), Standing Order No. 15(3)(a) 115(3)(h)--Respondent was serving as operator--Initiationing of disciplinary proceedings--Show-cause--Inquiry proceedings--Dismissal form service--Grievance petition--Dismissed--Appeal--Accepted--Violation of--Workman Allegations of--Mala fide of petitioner--Incriminating material against respondent--Challenge to--Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Respondent No. 2 for alleged violation of Standing Order No. 15(3)(a) & (h) of Ordinance, 1968--Stance taken by petitioner in its reply to Grievance Petition renders it crystal clear that it admitted status of Respondent No. 2 as a workman, thus, it cannot be allowed to change its stance before High Court irrespective of fact as to whether it challenged findings of the Labour Court whereby he was treated as workman--Right from inception of disciplinary proceedings upto issuance of dismissal letter of itself had been relying upon different provisions of Ordinance 1968--Punishments provided under Standing Order 15 of Ordinance 1968 were only meant for a workman--Though Respondent No. 2 agitated certain issues but same could not be treated as misconduct--Though allegations of willful disobedience, riotous and disorderly behaviour were levelled against Respondent No. 2 in Show Cause Notice but petitioner did not produce anything to prove said fact inasmuch as, PW-1 and PW-2 did not utter a word about conduct of Respondent No. 2 during meeting constituting misconduct on his part--Penalty should commensurate with gravity of allegation--The action of petitioner dismissing him from service could not be validated especially when same was based on material which was insufficient to bring home guilt against him--Initiation of proceedings against Respondent No. 2 alone stands proof of fact that he was discriminated which approach being violative of Article 25 of Constitution of could not be approved.Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010—----S. 2(xxxi)--Workman--Only those…