1970 PLP 49 (PLC)

(a) Industrial dispute --‑Domestic enquiry‑Defence‑Accused stating that lee did not want to produce any defence‑‑Enquiry Of in circumstances, held; could not compel production of defence‑Plea that accused was ‑not given opportunity to produce defence, in. circumstances, rejected. (b) Industrial dispute --‑Domestic enquiry‑Bus driver charged of wilful disobedience for not stopping bus when ordered and also for refusing to sign T. T. 40 Form‑Evidence on record 'indicating that bus was running at a speed of 30 miles an hour and was stopped at a distance of about 60 feet from place it had been signalled to stop‑Driver not boned to sign T. T. 40 Form‑Findings of enquiry proving him guilty, in circumstances, held, perverse in absence of any case of wilful disobedience. Sirajul Haq Qureshi for Appellant. Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent. Date of. hearing: 18th April 1969, The respondent was employed as Driver ‑ in Government Transport Service, Sukkur. He was charge‑sheeted for die obedience of the order of his superiors. It was alleged against him that he did not stop the bus whey ordered. In the second place he was charge‑sheeted for refusing to sign T. T. 40 Form. Ha was dismissed from service after enquiry on 29th November 1965. H made an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. The learned Industrial Court allowed the application on the ground that the respondent was not given an opportunity to produce his defence. Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that in the circumstances of the present case it is fully established from the record of the Enquiry Officer that the question of not giving an opportunity to produce defence did not arise. The respondent admittedly stated that he did not want to produce any defence. The Enquiry Officer in the face of this statement could not compel the respondent to produce defence. I would hold that the respondent was not refused an opportunity to lead defence. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the respondent contended that the report of Enquiry Officer is perverse inasmuch as on the evidence produced no case of wilful disobedience has been made out within the meaning of section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. Mr. Farasat Ali who checked the bus admitted that the bus stopped after help signalled it to stop at a distance of about 60 feets. A bus which is running at a speed of 30 miles or so will cover some distance before it stops. The bus could not stop before it had covered a distance of about 30 feets from the place where Mr. Farasat Ali signalled to stop, this could not be said to be wilful disobedience of the order. The Driver had refused to sign T. T. 40 form on the ground that he had never done it before. As a lay man he may have thought that if he were to sign it he may also be implicated along with the Conductor. He was asked to sign only as a witness. Under the circumstances of the present case it cannot be said to be wilful disobedience. I would hold that the Enquiry Report isl perverse. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.