1989 PLP 882 (PLC(CS))

Appeals No. OSA‑434 and 435 of 1987, decided on 16th December, 1987. ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Two workers alleged to have quarrelled with each other during working hours resulting in breach of discipline and stoppage of work for some time‑‑Both accused each other and no evidence was produced in domestic enquiry to prove who had taken the initiative, but both were dismissed‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding reinstatement and allowing employer to hold fresh enquiry to ascertain after evidence who out of them committed misconduct, was upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Ch. Fazal Hussain for Appellant. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 7‑l 1‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.

3. Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondents have been directed to be reinstated in service, allowing the appellant to hold fresh inquiry. Since on account of the same incident the respondents were charge‑sheeted and after holding joint inquiry they were dismissed from service, both the appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The ground on which the respondents were dismissed from service was that they had during working hours quarrelled with each other, with the result that the work was stopped for some time. The incident is admitted but both the respondents accused each other for committing indiscipline. The inquiry was not properly held, inasmuch as no prosecution witness was examined. Since the respondents were accusing each other, the appellant should have produced evidence to prove who had taken the initiative. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that since the incident was admitted, production 'of prosecution evidence was not necessary. Only in that case the evidence is not recorded where the worker has admitted the commission of the misconduct. Since both the respondents had not admitted that they were responsible for the breach of peace. it cannot be said that there was any admission of misconduct on their part. The evidence produced by the respondents was, therefore, in defence. In regular criminal cases where one man accuses the other, the person at whose instance the case was registered or who had brought the complaint is the prosecutor and has to produce the evidence. In the present case none of the respondents brought any complaint and the appellant accused both of them for committing misconduct, therefore, evidence should have been produced to prove who out of the two or both of them had committed misconduct.

3. As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed in limine. A.E./485/Lb. P Appeals dismissed.