1977 PLP 697 (PLC)

Domestic enquiry-Plea of bias and mala fide-No evidence of victimisation - Mere allegation of male fide

Not enough

Mala fide-Must be fully established. Mahmood A. Ghani for Appellant. Choudary Maarif Ali Khan for Respondent. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court allowing the application made by the respondent under section 25-A, I. R. O. ands ordering re-instatement with full back benefits.

2. The respondent was employed as a Mechanic in the workshop of the appellant since about 13 years. On 24th September, 1975 Mistri Khamiso asked the respondent to work on a Fiat Car. Although, he asked Khamiso for assistance of his fellow workers but he was alone asked to work. He, therefore, complied. Again on 25th September, 1975 Khamiso asked the respondent to work on a Vauxhall Car and on account of some confusion there arose clash between them. The respondent made tyro applications to the Works Manager. However, on 27th September, 1975 the respondent was charge-sheeted for disobeying the orders of Khamiso and instigating workers to go-slow with the work. The respondent denied the allegations. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. On the completion of the inquiry a show-cause notice was served upon the respondent and finally he was dis missed from service by a letter dated lot November, 1975. After serving the grievance notice the respondent approached the Labour Court.

3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court allowed the application and ordered re instatement of the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.

4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to maintain the order passed by the Labour Court. In fact, the learned Presiding Officer lent himself into error when he observed that allegation of disobedience was co-related with tire allegation of instigating to go slow. According to him, the disobedience was not established and, therefore, the instigation to go-slow also failed. In my view there were two separate allegations and were not co-related as observed by the learned Presiding Officer.

5. Since the disobedience was not established, I confine myself td the question whether the allegation to go slow was established. In this connection reference may be made to the evidence of Khamiso and Badrul Hasan, who clearly stated that the respondent had told the workers to adopt go-slow policy and should remain at their places. It is not understood how in the face of this evidence the learned Presiding Officer farmed an opinion that the allegation of instigation to slow down the work was not established. The Inquiry Officer had believed the evidence and the Labour Court could not sit in appeal against the appreciation of the evidence by the Inquiry Officer. In my view the allegation was established and the respondent was guilty of misconduct. 6 It was observed by the learned Presiding Officer that the inquiry proceedings indicated that the signatures of the respondent were not taken by the Inquiry Officer on the statement of the defence witnesses nor on the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings; though his signatures were taken on all the pages and this supported the respondent that he was not allowed to produce defence witnesses. In my view the learned Presiding Officer cle5rly erred in raising the presumption. I have gone through the inquiry proceedings and I find that the inquiry was held on 15th October, 1975 and at the time of inquiry only two witnesses of the respondent were present and both were actually examined. Both the witnesses signed their statements. There is no allegation that the evidence of the defence witnesses was manipulated and, therefore, the absence of the signature of the respondent on those statements is meaningless. In this connection it was further pleaded that there Rat no endorsement of the inquiry Officer that the inquiry was closed nor the signature of the respondent was taken. In this connection reference may be made to the application dated 24th October, 1975 made by the respondent to the Inquiry Officer in which a demand for the copies of the witnesses was made bur there was absolutely no allega tion that some of the witnesses which he waned to produce were not examined. The inquiry was completed on 15th October, 1975 and this was the first application made by the respondent to the Inquiry Officer. The allegation of the refusal to examine the witnesses was for the first time made in the reply dared 28th October, 1975 to the show-cause notice dated 23rd October, 1975. It is, therefore, apparent that this allegation was an after thought and there vas no substance in it.

7. It was next urged that the statement of the witnesses were not recorded on oath arid, therefore, no sanctity could be attached to the evi dence of the witnesses. I also find no force in this contention as statements recorded during the in4uiry amply make it clear that the statements were recorded on oath.

8. It was next urged on behalf of the respondent that the proceedings were not written by the Inquiry Officer himself. Of course this is true but the Inquiry Officer was Parsi and he did not know in read and write Urdu. Consequently, the assistance of another member of the staff was required. No fault can be found with the procedure which was adopted and there has been no allegation of any prejudice having been caused either in the grievance petition or in the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O Even there is no allegation of any interpolation. Furthermore, the respondent took no objection and participated in the inquiry. He, therefore, cannot be permitted nom to raise the plea that the inquiry proceedings were written by a person other than the Inquiry Officer.

9. It was next urged on behalf of the respondent that in the Labour Court a plea was taken that inquiry proceedings were not supplied. But this aspect of the case was not dealt with by the Labour Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the refusal to supply the inquiry, proceedings vitiated the inquiry. I am unable to uphold this objection. Admittedly, show-cause notice and the inquiry report were supplied to the respondent. There is nothing in law or violation of principle of natural justice to vitiate tie inquiry. In the view I am supported by the decision of the High Court of Lahore in the case of Punjab Road Transport Board v. Punjab Labour Court and another (P L D 1976 Lah. 793).

10. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the inquiry was biased and mala fide. I must say that no evidence of victimization was led and bare word of the respondent was not enough. When an allegation of mala fide is made, it must be fully established. It is, however, urged that why Khamiso against whom the respondent had complained was not charge-sheeted. In this connection it is enough to say that according to the Management the allegation against Khamiso was not established. There is no allegation that the Management bad any motive or grouse against the respondent although. I repeatedly asked the counsel to paint out any such. It was also pleaded that the Inquiry Officer was not examined in the Labour Court. This objection has no force. It was unnecessary to examine the Inquiry Officer when the only allegation against him was that be did not allow the examination of other witnesses, whom the respondent wanted to tender, but I have already pointed out that this allegation was an after thought and there was no substance in the allegation.

11. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. The application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. stands dismissed.