1989 PLP 60 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal‑‑Allegation that two workers had quarrelled and attacked each other‑‑No finding recorded by Enquiry Officer as to who was aggressor and who initiated trouble‑‑Penalty of dismissal against one worker, held, was rightly set aside by Labour Court and order of acceptance of grievance petition upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Evidence indicating that petitioner worker too caused injuries to other worker; his reinstatement would be on account of doubt and as such he would not be entitled to back benefits. Sh. Attaur Rehman for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ikram for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 14‑3‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he had quarrelled, attacked and injured his co‑worker Shamim Ahmad. Shamim Ahmad too was charge‑sheeted but was awarded the punishment of stopping of annual increment for one year but the respondent was dismissed from service.

3. An application for additional evidence has been given on behalf of the respondent for the productions of a report made by Sardar Ali. The ground is that although that report is mentioned in the statement of Sardar Ali, yet it was not brought on the inquiry file. The inquiry officer deposed in his statement that the A report had been produced during the inquiry and that its copies were delivered to the respondent. Since the respondent had copy of the report with him, he has no justification to apply for additional evidence. He could very well produce the copy of the report in the learned lower Court.

4. The evidence is that both the workers attacked each other and no finding has been recorded by the inquiry officer as to who was the aggressor and who initiated. the trouble. If a person is attacked, naturally he causes injuries to his opponent in self‑defence and in such a situation he cannot be deemed to be an aggressor and to have committed any offence. It is not expected from a Muslim to quietly receive injuries at the hands of his opponent according to the rules of Christianity, which is that if one gives a slap on one side of the face, the victim g should offer the other side of the face to receive injury on it. It is necessary in such cases to fix responsibility and to find out who out of the two fighting persons is the aggressor. In these circumstances the order of reinstatement recorded by I the learned lower Court cannot be disturbed. Since it is in evidence that the respondent too caused injuries to his opponent, he stands reinstated only on account of doubt and thus in such circumstances he is not entitled to back benefits.

5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent. A.E./395/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal party accepted.