2000 PLP 223 (PLC)

3. I have heard Mr. Salim Raza, representative of the appellant and Mr. Mehboob Rizvi, Advocate for the respondent:

4. Mr. Salim Raza submitted firstly that the Enquiry Officer was neither impartial nor independent. I read with him the enquiry proceedings in its entirety. My impression, on going through the entire enquiry proceedings, is that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry as to the charge, independently and impartially. This is the impression I gathered after going through the proceedings in its entirety, as such, the submission is unfounded.

5. Mr. Salim Raza next submitted that the reply statement, signed by its Factory Manager Taj Hussain and also his affidavit‑in‑evidence, cannot be treated as evidence in the eye of law, as said Taj Hussain did not appear as witness for the respondent for cross‑examination. Agreeing partly with the submission of Mr. Salim Raza, the affidavit‑in‑evidence filed by Taj Hussain cannot be taken into consideration as evidence of the respondent. However, I inquired Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, as to why the respondent did not produce its Factory Manager Taj Hussain for cross‑examination, his reply was that he had already left the job of the respondent and his whereabouts were not known to the respondent. He, however, invited my attention to the affidavit- in‑evidence filed by one Abdul Rasheed, the Factory Manager, who succeeded Taj Hussain, On perusal of the evidence of appellant and the respondent Abdul Rasheed, it seems that Abdul Rasheed was well‑aware of the facts of the case being in his personal knowledge, as he then was Production Manager, at the time of charge‑sheet. He, thus, stated on Oath that "whatever has been stated in the reply statement on behalf of the management alongwith all the Annexures are true and correct." In effect, he seems to have adopted the statement, made in the reply statement alongwith Annexures. As such no exception can be taken to his evidence, as he was also cross‑examined at length by .the appellants representative. The third submission as made by Mr. Salim Raza is that the charge is not covered by Standing Order 15(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as it constitutes no misconduct. The relevant portion of the said Standing Order is re‑produced below:‑‑‑ , "15(3). The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct:‑‑ (a) ................... (b) ................... (c) Willful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property:" He further submits that there was no proof as to the intentionally causing damage or loss of property to the respondent.

6. I have read with Mr. Salim Raza the statements of the respondent's witness namely Amir Ali, Production Manager and S.A. Hussaini, Chie Chemist and Production Incharge. Both statements go to prove the charge against the appellant. It is very significant to note that while cross‑examining respondent's witness Amir Ali, it was answered by him that. Another witness Hussaini was not at all cross‑examined by the appellant although opportunity was provided by the Enquiry Officer to him.

7. Mr. Salim Raza submitted lastly that the learned Labour Court did not look into the fact that the loss was caused by one Abdul Qayyum, a Co Worker. The learned Labour Court was justified in not adverting to the aspect as said Abdul Qayyum was neither produced by the appellant nor b5 the respondent.

8. I therefore, find no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. H.B.T./291‑K (Lab. Trib). Appeal dismissed.