1983 PLP 842 (PLC(CS))

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 26‑5‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had instigated the workers to go on strike and himself too went on strike. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Personnel Manager was not competent to charge‑sheet and dismiss the appellant, because his appointment was not brought to the notice of the Inspector of Factories. who was, according to section 10 (5) of the Factories Act, the District Magistrate and instead the information was sent to the Zonal Director. Section 9 of the Factories Act doer, not say that if the Inspector of Factories has not been informed about the appointment of Manager, his appointment is illegal. If compliance of section 9 was not made, it may amount to some offence but the appointment of the Manager does not stand vitiated, nor he is debarred from functioning as such.

3. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Enquiry Officer was an interested person as his duty. was to hold enquiries. The Officer who held the enquiry is not by designation Enquiry Officer and has not been employed only for making enquiries, so the argument has no force. Moreover, no objection was raised during the enquiry, nor any application was given for his substitution. Now it is too late for the appellant to raise such an objection.

4. The last argument of the learned counsel, however, is not without force. The Enquiry Officer did not consider and discuss the defence evidence. D.W. 2 was the supervisor of the shop where the appellant was posted. He deposed during the enquiry that the machine of the appellant had gone out of order and that he and the appellant had been repairing it, till the closing time on the day of strike. He was the incharge of the appellant. It was not shown that he had motive to depose against the Management, therefore, there appears to be no reason to discard the evidence of D.W.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that D.W. 2 admitted that, some machines had started work on the day of strike late. If in reality certain machines started functioning late, it does not mean that the appellant had either instigated the workers or he himself went on strike. Since he had been with D.W. 2 repairing his machine, he remained present on duty. So it does not stand proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellant had committed the offence charged with.

5. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned lower Court and accepting the grievance petition of the appellant direct his re‑instatement in service. He is allowed 5% back benefits. Appeal accepted.