1976 PLP 928 (PLC)

(b) Industrial dispute

Re-instatement-Back benefits-Dismissal order set aside due to defective enquiry-Workman on re-instatement, held, would be entitled to back benefits only if found not guilty in fresh enquiry if held by Management. Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Appellant. Muhammad Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th August 1916 This is an appeal against the decision dated 15-6-1976 of Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.

2. Muhammad Alam, appellant joined service as a Security Supervisor in May, 1970. On 1-1-1971 he was promoted as Junior Shipper. He and his Senior Shipper Muhammad Saleem were put in charge of the stock of empty bottles. On 11-8-1975 a physical checking was made and it was found that empties of the value of Rs. 15,000 were missing. On 12-8-1975 a charge-sheet was issued to both Muhammad Saleem and the appellant. In that charge-sheet the Management had already imposed a fine of Rs. 7,580.75 each on both Muhammad Saleem, Senior Shipper and the appellant. This charge-sheet did not disclose specifically the misconduct on the part of the appellant. In fact it was rather a vague charge-sheet. The appellant admitted the shortage of empty bottles but pleaded that the breakages had not been properly accounted for. On 22-8-1975 a letter Exh. P-3 was sent by the Management to the appellant to the effect that the explanation, submitted by him was unsatisfactory and he was asked to re-check the stock. There after second charge-sheet Exh. P-5 was issued to the appellant. This charge sheet bears no date. Since the reply was found unsatisfactory, an inquiry was instituted against both the appellant and Muhammad Saleem. As a result of the inquiry the appellant was dismissed from service, while the senior shipper Muhammad Saleem was retained in service, because the appellant's duty was in day time when the misappropriation of the empties is alleged to have taken place, whereas the duty of Muhammad Saleem was during night time, when no misappropriation of the empties, according to the management, could have taken place. The appellant challenged the order of his dismissal by way of a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court dismissed his petition vide decision under appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Muhammad Alam, appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. On the perusal of the inquiry proceedings on the record I find that the Inquiry Officer did not record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All what he did was that at the first instance, he recorded the statements of both the appellant and Muhammad Saleem by putting questions to them. I also find that the statements of two prosecution witnesses namely, Ahmed Shah and Muhammad Shafi were not recorded in the presence of the appellant, and the co-accused, and as such no opportunity was afforded to the appellant and his co-accused to cross-examine them. Lastly I find that the appellant was not given a chance to produce any evidence in his defence. From the above it is clear that the peculiar procedure adopted by the inquiry Officer was against the principles of natural justice and as such the order of dismissal passed against him is invalid. In Amul Ya Ratan Mukherjee v. Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer Eastern Railway and others (1963 P L C 651) it was held that in a departmental inquiry against a workman who is alleged to have committed misconduct, he must be given the fullest opportunity of defending himself. The departmental inquiry must be properly conducted in accordance with the rules which have been firmly established. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen (1964 P L C 135) it was held that a workman who is required to answer a charge of misconduct in a domestic enquiry must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to bear evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This a the barest minimum of a domestic enquiry and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted.

5. The afore-mentioned decisions of the Indian Courts support my view expressed above.

6. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and direct the Management of Adil Beverage Company Limited a to re-instate the appellant. The Management will be at liberty to hold and enquiry afresh if it so desires, and if the appellant is found not guilty, then alone he will be entitled to back benefits.