1977 PLP 304 (PLC)

‑‑ Domestic enquiry ‑ Confessional statement of accused ‑ Three accused charge of same offence (theft) facing joint enquiry‑Their statement accusing each other and throwing burden of guilt upon one another inter se‑Not sufficient to be treated as confession‑Findings based upon such statements treating them as confession‑Not sufficient for punishment. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑ . ‑‑ Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Confession ‑‑ Workers charged of theft‑Facing joint inquiry‑Their statements implicating each other Such statements treated as confession and finding of guilt based thereon‑‑Such statements, held, could not be treated as confession‑Dismissal set aside on technical ground‑Management, in circumstances, held, justified to hold fresh enquiry‑Accused workmen‑Accused workmen, held, not justified to claim back benefits on re‑instatement. DECISION The above appeals and cross appeals have been filed against the orders of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 25th April, 1975 in three different cases filed before it, by Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Yousaf and Haq Nawaz workers, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. These cases were filed to challenge the orders of dismissal passed against the said workers by the Management of A and B Industrial Gases, Limited, Multan, hereinafter mentioned the Management. The above‑named workers were alleged to have joined together in an attempt to commit theft of some quantity of scrap lying in the factory store on 16th December, 1974 at about I1‑30 p. m. However, they were detected on the very spot by Muhammad Shah chaukidar and one Security Jamadar whereupon the matter was reported to the Management. The workers were charge‑sheeted and ultimately dismissed by the Management on the oasis of the domestic enquiry conducted by an enquiry committee cons1sting of Muhammad Akram and Saeed Rana, officers of the Management. The learned lower Court after going through the record of the domestic enquiry in all the three petitions came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted properly and the workers were prejudiced in their defence which warranted their re‑instatement. However it was observed in the impugned order that in view of the peculiar circumstances the Management was allowed to hold a fresh enquiry and that period during which the workers remained unemployed would be treated as leave without pay. The workers have appealed against the impugned order to get the condition of holding fresh enquiry against them, expunged and also to be directed to have the relief of back benefits alongwith their re‑instatements which was refused to them by the learned lower Court. On the other hand the Management has filed the appeals to get the re‑instatement in respect of all the three workers set aside on merits of case. Since the basic issues to be determined in the appeals and cross appeals are the same and the dismissal orders of all the three workers were based on one and the same enquiry proceedings and enquiry report, the present decision will dispose of all these appeals. I have gone through the record of the domestic enquiry proceeding as well as that of the learned Lower Court and do not find any defect in the impugned order. It is an obvious fact that no evidence was recorded in the enquiry proceedings in addition to the statements of the workers and the enquiry report was based on these statements alone. The learned counsel for the Management tried to convince me that there was no need of any further evidence in view of the accused workers having admitted their guilt in their statement before the enquiry officer. But the contention could not be regarded as well founded when the statements of the accused worker were read out in the Court and were not found to contain any confession of guilt except for exculpatory statement throwing the burden of the gull on one another inter se with the request to pardon them for the m1stake. Such statements could not be regarded confessional statements in the eye of law and could not form the basis of the verdict of guilty. It could not be said because of the fact that the actual commission of theft was not at all confessed or fully attributed the conduct of any one of the workers. Under circumstance the domestic enquiry was reduced to a farce and the workers were rightly reinstated in service by the learned lower Court. As for the direction for allowing fresh enquiry and in regard to the refusal of the back benefits. I have not found anything on the record or in the argu ments of the learned counsel to form a different view. Because the Management not having been converted with the procedural obligations of law appeared to have some difficulty to conduct the enquiry on proper lines. The fact also cannot be lost sight of that the workers did admit their implication in the attempt of theft in their statements which only technically could not be held as confessional statement. In such situation the period spent by them without any work could not be compensated with back benefits. This being so the conditions as to holding fresh enquiry and reinstatement without back benefits are quite justified and cannot be set aside. In the result the impugned orders are upheld and all the appeals and cross appeals are dismissed.