1989 PLP 665 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Documentary and oral evidence‑‑Comparative value of‑‑Where documentary evidence is available, oral evidence cannot be given any weight. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal‑‑Service of inquiry notice upon employee not proved‑‑Employee not found to be responsible for ex parte enquiry held against him‑‑To cut short matter case was sent to Authority for getting the inquiry held again instead of remanding same to lower Court. Ch. Khalid Farooq for Appellant. Tahir Khilji for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 7‑9‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed ex parte.

2. The learned lower Court on entertaining the grievance petition issued notice to the respondent, in response to which counsel for the respondent had appeared but he thereafter absented himself and, therefore, the case was heard ex parte against the respondent. The appellant appeared as his own witness in ex parte evidence and produced copy of the inquiry report, charge‑sheet, reply to the charge‑sheet, final show‑cause notice and the reply to the same. The inquiry too was held ex parte against the appellant. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was of habitual absence. The enquiry file was not produced before the learned lower Court and the Court was misled by the inquiry report and considered it as the proceedings. In the report of the Inquiry Officer it is not mentioned that the register of attendance or any other document was produced to prove the alleged absences. Needless to say that where documentary evidence is available, oral evidence cannot be given any weight. The report shows that one witness was produced namely Mr. Sabir Hussain. There is no mention of the production of any document. There is no evidence that in reality the inquiry notice was served upon the appellant to appear in the inquiry on 26‑5‑1986. The report does not suggest how the service of notice was proved. The learned lower Court thus wrongly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. Since the service of inquiry notice was not proved, it cannot be said that the appellant was responsible for the inquiry being held ex parte, therefore, it appears proper and even to cut short the matter it will be proper to remand the case to the respondent for fresh inquiry instead of remanding the case to the learned lower Court.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the dismissal order and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is directed to get the inquiry held again in the presence of the appellant. The question of back benefits would depend upon the result of fresh inquiry. AA./607/Lb. P Case remanded.