1982 PLP 925 (PLC(CS))

Crescent Jute Products Limited v. Muhammad Yaqoob P L D 1978 S C 207 and Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court No. II P L D 1980 S C 307 rel. Fazle Ghani Khan for Appellant. Ch. Rayhid Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st April, 1981. The respondent, who was employed as a Driver in the appellant company, was dismissed with effect from 25th March, 1980 on the charges of making a false complaint of un‑authorised reduction in the overtime paid to certain Drivers and using abusive language in respect of the Administrative Officer of the company. The dismissal orders are said to have been based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, Syed Muzaffar Ali, who held a domestic enquiry against the respondent. The report of the Enquiry Officer is not on record and it appears that copy of the same was also not furnished to the respondent workman. The dismissal orders were challenged by the respondent by way of grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. The learned IVth Labour Court, which heard the matter, has set aside the dismissal orders and directed the re‑instatement in service of the respondent with full back benefits on the grounds firstly that the enquiry proceedings were invalid and suffer from serious irregularity and that, secondly, even on merits, the misconduct of the respondent had not been established, 2. 1 have heard Mr. Fazle Ghani, the learned counsel for the appellant company, and Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, who appeared for the respondent workman.

3. Now as regards the finding of the learned Labour Court that the enquiry proceedings suffer from material irregularities and are, accordingly, invalid appears to be unassailable. It appears from the partial report of the enquiry proceedings produced before the learned Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer adopted a somewhat peculiar procedure in that the alleged complaints made by the three drivers against the respondents were read out to the respondent, and without the witnesses being asked to confirm that they had made the complaints or that the contents thereof were correct the respondent was asked to cross‑examine the witnesses. Next, the Enquiry Officer refused to furnish to the res pondent copies of the alleged complaints, in spite of specific demand being made in this behalf by the respondent. The Enquiry Officer further permitted all the three witnesses to sit together during the enquiry proceedings so that they could hear the evidence and the answers in cross‑examination, which each one of them was giving. This procedure apart from inducing the witnesses to corroborate each other apparently put them under pressure to support the case against the respondent and denied the respondent of an opportunity to be able to elicit from the witnesses replies contrary to what other witnesses may have stated. These circumstances naturally engendered a feeling in the minds of the respondent and the two officers of the workers, federation assisting him in the enquiry that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the respondent. They, accordingly, sought change of the Enquiry Officer but the Enquiry Officer refused to postpone the proceedings and continued with the same despite the respondent and the union officers assisting him expressing their want of confidence in him. The appointment of Mr. Syed Muzaffar Ali as Enquiry Officer was not only inappropriate but was also improper and undesirable on another count in that admittedly he was associated with the proceedings against the respondent from the stage of charge‑sheet to dismissal and had personal knowledge of the facts. It may finally be mentioned that the complaint is not on the record of the enquiry proceed ings made available to the learned Labour Court and hence it was not possible for it to go into all the facts of the case, as required under sub section (PLD1978SC207) of section 25‑A, I.R.O. The said subsection, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Crescent Jute Products Limited v. Mohammad Yaqoob (1) provides another forum in determining the grievance afresh after, considering the facts on which any impugned dismissal is based.

4. Mr. Fazle Ghani did not seriously challenge the existence of the aforesaid irregularities in the enquiry proceedings. He, however, mainly directed his arguments against the failure on the part of the learned Labour Court to give another opportunity to the appellant company to hold a proper enquiry against the respondent. The view, however taken by the learned Labour Court was that the misconduct of the respondent had not been established. This finding was reached pre sumably because the full record of the enquiry proceedings was not made available to it. In any case, what the learned Labour Court should have considered is whether there was material on record or available with the appellant company in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. As already pointed out, the three complaints made by the three witnesses were read out to the respondent in the enquiry proceedings in the presence of the witnesses. Furthermore, all the three witnesses were cross‑examined by the respondent with the assistance of the two fede ration officers. In their cross‑examination each of these three witnesses has asserted that the respondent used grossly abusive language in respect of Mr. Safdar, the Administrative Officer. It is ^also admitted by the respondent in his statement in the domestic enquiry that complaint of unauthorised reduction in the overtime was made to the federation. As such, while the order of dismissal of the respondent stands vitiated by reason of the fact that he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself, at the same time I would not concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court that there is no evidence in support of the charges against the respondent. I would, however, like to make it clear that I do not mean by the above observation that the evidence is sufficient for establishing the charges. In fact I have not assessed the evidence which is to be done by the Enquiry Officer and the management in view of the orders that I propose to pass.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, relying upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court No. Il (P L 1) 1980 S C 307 ), 1 would, while upholding the order of the learned Labour Court regarding the reinstatment in service of the respondent, give an option to the appellant to hold a fresh enquiry against the respondent, in accordance with law, from the stage of reply to the charge‑sheet. The respondent, by now, known the details of the`' accusations against him and hence the supply of further details is un necessary. The enquiry, if any, should be held within the period of two months from the date of this order. The award of back benefits to the respondent will depend upon the result of' the enquiry.