1976 PLP 702 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 30th January 1974. This is an appeal by Punjab Road Transport Board, appellant, against the decision of Punjab Labour Court No. 1 dated 28-I1-1973, whereby the petition of Muhammad Aslam respondent under section 38 of the West Pakis tan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 challenging .his dismissal based on two charge-sheets Exh. R-1 that during the checking the respondent had mis behaved and beaten up the checker and Exh. R-2 that the respondent being a cleaner was not entitled to drive the vehicle but had driven it with disasterous result and thereby damaged it, was accepted and he was re-instated with back benefits.

2. This case has a chequered history. The petition of the respondent under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 against his dismissal on the aforementioned charge-sheets was accepted by the Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore vide its order dated 7-2-1970 and he was ordered to be re-instated with back benefits. The appellant went up in appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the learned Appellate authority vide its order dated 12-5-1970 (1970 P L C 576) maintained the order of re-instatement, because the copy of Enquiry Officer's report along with the second show-cause notice had not been supplied to the respondent. As regards benefits held that the respondent was not entitled to receive the same because that would depend upon the result of the ultimate finding on the merits of the case. It was also observed that the defect in the enquiry as to the second show-cause notice and the failure to give a copy of the enquiry report must be completed expeditiously. In case the defect in the enquiry was not made good within 3 weeks the respondent would be taken to have been exhonerated by the Department and that he would be entitled to full back benefits. The Management supplied a copy of the enquiry report alongwith the second show-cause notice and again dismissed the respondent on 13-6-1970. The respondent had also brought a departmental appeal on 20-6-1970, but before it could be decided he filed an application under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 in the Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore. The application was dismissed on the ground that the respondent was not the office-bearer of the Union. The departmental appeal was dismissed and intimation was sent to the respondent on 10-7-1972. Notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was given on 13-7-1972 and its reply was given on 20-7-1972. Thereafter respondent filed an application under section 25-A before the Labour Court Central Zone, Lahore, which was dismissed on the ground that it was barred under the rule of res judicata. Against that decision the respondent went up in appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore who vide its order dated 15-12-1972 (1973 P L C 365) accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. The Labour Court accepted the petition of the respondent on merits and directed that the respondent be re-instated with back benefits as already mentioned above.

3. Against that decision the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

4. On going through the record I find that the enquiry against the respondent was held by Mr. Murid Sultan Tasneem A. T. M, G. T. S., Multan (R. W. 1). In his enquiry report in para marked "A" it is mentioned that Muhammad Aslam confessed his guilt in the presence of the D. M. Multan, who was incidentally sitting in his office. In his cross-examination before the Labour Court, he made the following admission: "My attention has been drawn to para marked "A" in Exh. R-3. I admit that I have mentioned in this para that during preliminary enquiry Muhammad Aslam petitioner confessed his guilt in the presence of D. M , Multan, who was incidentally sitting in my office. I admit that this confession was made by him in my presence and in the presence of D. M., Multan . . . . . . . . ... I did not point out to the D. M., Multan, who -appointed me Enquiry Officer in this case, that I was a witness because fn my presence the petitioner had admitted his guilt, during the preliminary enquiry and therefore enquiry may be entrusted to someone else."

5. From the above it is clear that Mr. Tasneem was a witness to the confession of guilt made by the respondent. Under these circumstances Mr. Tasneem's appointment as an Enquiry Officer was against the basic principles of natural justice. In view of the above all the enquiry proceedings are null and void. I, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.