1977 PLP 201 (PLC)

(b) Industrial dispute‑‑. ‑‑ Misconduct‑Domestic enquiry ‑ Misconduct involving criminal offence cognisable by State‑Can be subjected to domestic enquiry irrespective of fact of its being taken up by police or criminal Court. Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Company 1975 S C M R eel. Nemo for Appellant. Mehboob Alam for Respondent. DECESION An appeal has been filed by Ghulam Nabi, ex‑Warder of the Colony Textile Mills, Islamabad, Multan against the order dated 15th June 1973, whereby his application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed. He joined the respondent establishment as Winder on 8th August 1969. He filed on instructions petition in the learned Junior Labour Court. Seeking of re‑instatement in service, whereas he had not been removed by any order of the respondent‑Establishment and on that score his application was rejected and he was directed to join the domestic enquiry which was of course then under way against him. The appellant joined the enquiry accordingly and was dismissed from service on 1st May 1975, as a result of that enquiry. The second application sent by him to the Junior Labour Court for his re‑instatement was decided against him which has led to the present appeal. It was alleged against the appellant that he assaulted his co‑worker Imam Bakhsh on 13th February 1973, and injured him and that he absented from the factory immediately after the incident. According to the appellant there was holiday on the next day i.e. 14th February 1973; that he obtained two days leave on 15th February 1973, and 16th February 1973, on the basis of a Social Security Certificate and that thereafter he was stopped to work. In the enquiry made against him he was given a charge‑sheet of which a reply was submitted by him, he joined the enquiry on 16th March 1973,, but refused to cross‑examine the witnesses produced against him in evidence. On the conclusion of the enquiry, a second show‑cause notice was given to him which position has not been controverted on behalf of the appellant in his pleadings. The course of the domestic enquiry could not be taken exception of for want of any inherent defect. The evidence was recorded in the domestic enquiry according to the best discretion of the respondent Management which stands immune from the criticism of the appellant. In this connection the Management has relied on Muhammad Ali Tramway Company, Karachi v. Imdad Ali (1) 1974 F L C Note 67 at p. 36 in which it was held that it was within the powers of the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry to believe the statement of the witnesses or to disbelieve them to reach a conclusion and that Labour Court was not entitled to get into this question or observe as to why statement of one witness was preferred over another. The nature of the misconduct alleged against a worker even if it involves criminal liability cognisable by the State can be enquired into the domestic enquiry respective of the fact that the same misconduct was complained to the Police or to the Court. Tile Management relies in this behalf in a judgment given by the Supreme Court Re: Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Company (2) (1) P L J 11975 Lah. 289 in which it was held that a worker when accused of theft, the question whether he committed the theft or not could be enquired by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour is only concerned with the question whether action taken against the workman was according to law and no more I have gone through the relevant record and find that the appellant was not prejudiced in his defence in the domestic enquiry and both the authorities cited above apply with full force to the circumstances of the present case in which the conclusion reached in the domestic enquiry along with the order impugned in this appeal become un‑exceptionable. It may be pointed out here that throughout the proceedings against the appellant from the stag: of his first application to the Junior Labour Court up to the appellant stage he has occasionally tried to take refuge in remaining absent where his presence was most necessary he is absent today without any application for adjustment and his absence cannot be regarded as genuine for any reason whatsoever. The appeal has therefore been heard on merits and is dismissed as having no force.