1979 PLP 304 (PLC)

S. P. Lodhi for Respondent. This is an appeal against the Order of the Labour Court refusing to grant permission to the appellant to dismiss the respondent. 2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant and he committed some acts of misconduct. Consequently, he was charge‑sheeted. He submitted his explanation. It was not found satisfactory, so an Enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry was held and the respondent was found guilty of the misconduct. A second show‑cause notice was also issued and an explanation was submitted. Since the explanation was not satisfactory the Management proposed to dismiss the respondent but this could not be done as an industrial dispute was pending. Consequently, an application was made to the Labour Court to grant permission for the dismissal of the respondent. 3. The application was opposed and it was pleaded that the entire enquiry and the proceedings initiated by the appellant were vitiated on account of the illegalities committed during the enquiry. 4. Evidence was tendered. On the assessment of the evidence, the learned Presiding Officer upheld the objections and dismissed the applica tion. 5. The main grounds which found favour with the learned Presiding Officer were that the Inquiry Officer was appointed by Mr. Rashid Abdullah who was not an Employer and secondly Mr. Shafiq Ahmad Qureshi, by virtue of being an employer, signed and issued the charge‑sheets and after receiving the explanation, he decided to hold a departmental enquiry and issued the enquiry letters. Not only this, but he appeared as a prosecution witness as well as a prosecutor in conducting the examination‑in‑chief and the cross‑examination. So, in the opinion of the learned Presiding Officer, this amounted to violation of the principle of material justice and bias on the part of the appellant. 6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments, t am unable to support the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Mr. Rashid Abdullah who had appointed the Inquiry Officer was a Senior Director of the Company and it is not understood how the learned Presiding Officer entertained the view that he was a non‑employer. He had probably not carefully read the definition of the Employer as provided by the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 7. So far as the second objection is concerned, I find nothing wrong with the part played by Mr. Shafiq Ahmad Qureshi. He was the Personnel Officer and, therefore, was competent to issue the charge‑sheet and conduct the enquiry before the Inquiry Officer. It is immaterial if he was examine as witness also as he had merely produced the documents as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments before me and this was not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. I am not inclined to agree that any illegality was committed, or there was any violation of principle of natural justice or any bias on the part of the appellant. It is not denied that the enquiry was held and every opportunity was allowed to the respondent to defend himself. 8. In the result, I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and grant the permission to the appellant to dismiss the respondent for having been found guilty of the acts of misconduct. Appeal allowed.