1990 PLP 378 (PLC)

The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated. 26‑2‑1989 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby Mr. Tariq Habib (hereinafter called as the respondent) has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has by his appeal, claimed back benefits whereas the General Manager, Bisvil Spinners Limited (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement.

2. Since the appeals captioned above emerge from the same order, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he had abused and threatened the Weaving Master Mr. Ghulam Rasul Butt.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance petition was incompetent as it had not been presented by the respondent himself. Since this plea was not taken before the learned lower Court, therefore, the parties had not produced any evidence. On 21‑7‑1983 the respondent had appeared in person to pursue his case in the learned lower Court and if on the said date still there was period of limitation available, the presentation became legal but since there is no evidence, the point cannot be finally decided.

4. The learned lower Court has on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not justified in holding ex parte enquiry, directed the reinstatement of the respondent. In the very grievance petition it is mentioned that after reading notice in the newspaper he went to the mills but was not allowed to enter into it and to participate in the enquiry. Thus the respondent had the knowledge of the date of the enquiry. The statement of the respondent that he was not allowed to enter the premises stands controverted by the evidence of the Enquiry Officer who appeared before the learned lower Court as RW:

1. He deposed that the respondent had joined the enquiry proceedings and that the charge‑sheet and the reply to the charge were read to him but he left the premises saying that he had only to get his presence marked. He admitted that the respondent had neither cross‑examined the prosecution witnesses nor had (sic.) the defence because he had boycotted the enquiry proceedings. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had no confidence in the Enquiry Officer. If it was so, then an application should have been made for getting him changed. Since it was not done, the respondent should have joined the enquiry. Since the respondent without any just cause boycotted the enquiry, the plea that he did not cross‑examine the witnesses and did not produce any defence, cannot benefit him. He himself is responsible for not availing the opportunity of cross‑examining the witnesses and producing defence. There is no application on the record for changing the Enquiry Officer. In the previous petition the respondent had taken the plea that the President of the Union had asked him not to join the enquiry saying that the Enquiry Officer was not acceptable. It is thus clear that the respondent himself was responsible for the enquiry being held ex parte against him. The witnesses examined during the enquiry supported the charge and since there was no rebuttal, the respondent was rightly dismissed from service. The learned lower Court failed to consider these facts discussed above and thus erred in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent. Since the very order of reinstatement is being set aside, no question of back benefits to the respondent arises.

5. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted, the appeal of the respondent is dismissed, the impugned order is set aside, the order of dismissal of the respondent is revived and the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. H.B.T./722/Lb. P Appeal accepted.