1976 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial dispute

Dismissal for misconduct-Domestic enquiry

Non-supply of copy of enquiry report with show-cause notice

Effect Guilt admitted by workman before enquiry m' even before Enquiry Officer-Workman fully aware of charge--No prejudice, in circumstances, held, caused by non-supply of cop; of enquiry report

Findings of enquiry, in circumstances held cannot be interfered with by Court. Ch. Fatal Din for Appellant. Hameed Ahmed for Respondent. Mst. Khurshid Bibi, the respondent was employed as a worker in the Premier Cloth Mills, Lyallpur. She was dismissed from service. She filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lyallpur. She was ordered to be re-instated with back benefits. The management has filed this appeal against order of re-instatement. On 18th December 1973, it was found that the respondent has removed cloth measuring 1 yard from Mills. A domestic inquiry was made on 19th November 1973. The respondent confessed her guilt and asked for pardon. A report was made to the management accordingly. A charge-sheet was framed on 23rd November 1973'and was delivered to her. In reply to this charge-sheet, the respondent did not make a clear statement. She admitted her guit half heartedly. An inquiry officer was appointed and on the basis of his report a show-cause notice was served on 6th December 1973. Thereafter she was dismissed from service. In her petition she alleged that the charge of theft was wrong, that she was not guilty and so she may be re-instated. Before the Junior Labour Court, she examined three witnesses including herself. She stated that no cloth was recovered from her. She appeared before the inquiry officer with a nominee but her nominee was not allowed to assist her. The other witness Alexander (P. W. 2), stated that he appeared before the inquiry officer but he was riot allowed to represent the case of the respondent. The third witness Yousaf Masih (P. W. 3), stated that he appeared before the inquiry officer as defence witness but the inquiry officer informed him that his evidence was not needed. On the basis of above evidence the learned lower Court gave finding to the effect that the respondent was not allowed to represent her case through a nominee and that inquiry report was not given to her therefore the inquiry proceedings were bad in law. I have grave doubt if these grounds could be taken by the respondent to challenge the domestic inquiry. The reason is that she has not taken these grounds in her petition. She only stated in her petition that the charge of theft against her was false. In my opinion these grounds could not be taken by her. Assuming for the sake of argument, these grounds could be taken during the proceedings before the lower Court. I find no evidence to come to the conclusion that the respondent was not allowed to represent her case before the inquiry officer. Mr. K. M. Alvi (D. W. 1) was the inquiry officer, appointed by the Management. He denied that Alexander and Yousaf Masih appeared before him and that their evidence was not recorded, there is no reason to disbelieved him. My finding is that the respondent has not brought these witnesses before the inquiry officer and she c'id not nominate Mr. Alexander to represent her case before the inquiry officer. Finding of the Junior Labour Court is perverse. As far as inquiry report is concerned it was admitted by Mr. K. M. Alvi that this report was not given to the respondent. Non-supply of this report is not sufficient to bold-the domestic inquiry illegal. It must be proved by the respondent that/ prejudice was caused to her in the present case. She had admitted twice that she was guilty of theft and she had asked for pardon on both the occasions. She was fully aware of the charge against her and if the inquiry report was not' supplied to her, no prejudice was caused the domestic inquiry cannot be, interfered with on this account.