1993 PLP 242 (PLC)

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court arises in the following circumstances:‑‑ The appellant was working as a Tradesman Class‑I and was with the, respondent for over 2 decades. It is alleged that on the 22nd of November 1989 at the end of the day's work, while leaving for home he was checked at the gate which is customary, and was found in possession of 42 electrodes. He was called upon for an explanation and later came to be charge‑sheeted on the 28th of November. 1989. As his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry was held and on the basis of the report submitted by Mr. Basharat Ahmed, Assistant Manager in the respondent company, he was dismissed on the 30th of December 1989.

2. The appellant had sent a grievance notice which was replied to, and finding no satisfaction, a petition was filed before the Labour Court.

3. It was alleged in the petition that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not supported by witnesses and he had been maliciously run down. The signature obtained by the respondent in which he was stated to have admitted his guilt, was under duress. In the Written Reply, objection was taken to the effect that the Director Operation, who was made the respondent in the petition was not the employer. The other allegation came to be denied.

4. The appellant was his own witness before the Labour Court and Sardar Muhammad Khan, Manager, Industrial Relations and Basharat Ahmed the Enquiry Officer appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5. The argument before me, was limited to the factual plane by either party. The short question therefore which remains to be examined is whether there was anything which smacks of bias, or in breach of the principles of natural justice in the holding of the enquiry.

6. Not a word has been said against the Enquiry Officer. The proceedings were duly attended by the appellant and full opportunity was given to cross‑examine the witnesses by a co‑worker of his choice.

7. The appellant soon after the seizure of the electrodes had been produced before the authorities and an officer of the company, by the name of Inam had also taken the explanation of the appellant which was signed by him. He was also produced before Sardar Muhammad Khan.

8. All that has been attempted by Mr. Jeelani learned counsel for the appellant was to point out certain discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses before the domestic enquiry.

9. It is true that Ghulam Hussain had, as a neighbour of the appellant did his bit, but nobody out of all the witnesses examined before the Enquiry Officer was nursing any grudge or bias against the appellant. There was no explanation as to why they had all ganged up against the appellant. The explanation of the appellant produced at a later stage has been discarded by the Labour Court from its consideration, but even what remains is sufficient to establish the charge which could not be explained away.

10. I am satisfied with the conclusions reached by the Labour Court. I will therefore dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2104/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.