1994 PLP 527 (PLC)

2. The petitioner had replied to the charge‑sheet. As the same was not found to be satisfactory, enquiry notice was issued on the 17th of July for the 20th of July.

3. The Enquiry Officer had examined Muhammad Latif Bhatti, Malik Zada, Rahim Badshah, and Ovais Subzwari. He had also examined Saghir Ahmed and his witness Iftikhar Ahmed, and Gul Ahmed and submitted his report wherein he had found that the charge of misconduct had been made out against the petitioner. This resulted in the order of dismissal on 13‑8‑1991. 4.The petitioner had sent the requisite grievance notice on 26‑8‑1991 and finding no satisfaction from the reply filed the petition before the Labour Court.

5. The petition came to be resisted inter alia on the ground that only a Director had been impleaded as a party and not the factory, which has a juristic entity of its own.

6. The petitioner was his own witness while Muhammad Athar a Director and Syed Hassan Imam Rizvi the Enquiry Officer appeared on behalf of the respondent.

7. The Labour Court found that the charge‑sheet was not read over to the petitioner, the complaint was not produced, and established procedure for the conduct of enquiry had not been followed. It also found fault with the report inasmuch as the evidence had not been properly and analytically discussed. Further, the Enquiry Officer had also failed to furnish reasons for the conclusion reached by him. There was also no wilful disobedience. It therefore allowed the petition with back benefits, with the observation that "however the management is at liberty to hold the enquiry against him for the same grievance in accordance with law".

8. The contention in regard to the non‑joinder of necessary party was overruled by the Labour Court very properly. Muhammad Athar who was running the affairs of the company as per resolution of the Board of Directors could defend its interest and no prejudice could be involved.

9. The narration of events has been given in detail by Muhammad Latif Bhatti who is an Engineer, and even the respondent in his statement acknowledges him to be a "Buzurg". He stated that because of the fear of damage to the Boiler when his words had remained unheeded by the respondent, he had requested Syed Badshah, Malik Zada who is the President of the` Union, to bring him back but all in vain. The respondent had participated in the enquiry and did not put any question to him. Malik Zada supports him about the damage to the volve. He had also gone out and seen 3 Turners standing outside. The 2 companions of the respondent according to him had started moving to attend to the work. But they were called back by the respondent. He also was not subjected to any cross‑examination. Rahim Badshah also supports them fully and the respondent does not deny his signature in this case, as he had some in regard to Bhatti and Malik Zada. He is also supported by Muhammad Amin Shah‑and his statement is also without cross‑examination and the respondent admits his signature thereon. None of them has any ill-will or bias against the respondent. They are all witnesses of truth. 10 Now let us see as to what the respondent himself had to say. He has stuck to his earlier versions. According to him, when asked by Muhammad Latif Bhatti to attend to the Boiler, he had expressed his readiness but had told him that he would take a little time, as he had to change his clothes and would also like to help himself with water. This had enraged Bhatti and he had shouted back and apart from hurling abuses, had taunted him by saying that he was behaving like a Governor. He had thereupon walked away. He mentions the presence of Syed Badshah and also Malik Zada. The latter had intervened, but he had asked him to let him alone, lest he misbehaved with his "Buzurg" He also mentioned Nasir Ahmed and Farid Ahmed joining him, and their refusing to attend to the work because of the misbehaviour meted out to him.

11. During the enquiry Bhatti had spoken on oath that he had not abused and if necessary he was prepared to swear for the same. Bhatti had also added that he would be prepared to accept the charge if the respondent was himself prepared to take oath on the Holy Book. None of the 2 challenges were accepted by the respondent. His witnesses had also mentioned that Bhatti had abused him but the actual words have not been mentioned by anybody, the respondent included. I am of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer was not in the wrong to have accepted the words the witnesses.

12. The learned Presiding Officer has found fault with the procedure adopted at the enquiry. There is a procedure prescribed for the conduct of cases on the civil side and the cases on the criminal side. I am not aware of any prescribed procedure for the domestic enquiries. All that is expected is that principles of natural justice and fairplay would be adhered to and scales be kept even between the parties.

13. I have gone through the enquiry report and the statement of the witnesses and every thing seems to be in order. There is no warrant for the view that the charge‑sheet should be read over before the statement of the witnesses are recorded. The learned Presiding Officer says that the complaint of Bhatti was not produced m writing, but there is nothing on the record to show that a complaint in writing had ever been made. The statement of the respondent had been recorded after the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had been completed, and the witnesses of the respondent had been examined after his statement. None of the witnesses of the parties had been subjected to any cross‑examination. Only Bhatti had put some questions to the respondent alone. The report has been carefully prepared and mentions that the witnesses were not subjected to cross‑examination. It is being rather demanding that a layman should scrutinize and weigh the evidence as meticulously and analytically as is expected of a person stepped in legal niceties.

14. The question of afresh enquiry if so advised as observed by the learned Presiding Officer was hardly called for. The respondent had seen for himself that the Boiler was not working and there could be serious problems or at least a delayed start of work if the valve was not changed. He should have himself risen to the occasion, and tried to contribute his bit to save the situation. He does not say anywhere that it was not his duty, and ultimately when he and his companions Nasir Ahmed and Farid Ahmed had declined, the valve was changed by a boiler attendant. He was asked by the Engineer on duty and had also been requested by the President of his Union and others but he not only refused personally, but encouraged Nasir Ahmed and Farid Ahmed, to keep away.

15. I am of the opinion that it was a case of wilful insubordination. Mr. Zafar Farooqui has referred me to the case of Road Transport Corporation v. Lai Khan 1971 PLC 210 but that pertained to the driver contravening the instructions of the Department namely Rule

81. That hardly has any application to the circumstances of the case. I am clearly of the opinion that the order is not sustainable. I will, therefore, set it aside, and allow the appeal. H.B.T./2294/Lb.S Appeal allowed.