1986 PLP 1146 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Employee ordered to be re‑instated inc service on ground of his having taken special oath while employer refused to take such oath‑‑Where special oath is proposed, no adverse presumption, held, could be drawn against party refusing to take such oath. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Decision on oath‑‑Oath administered differently than proposed‑‑Effect‑‑Where special oath administered to employee was not in accordance with proposal made by him, Labour Court, held, would not be justified in not deciding case in conventional manner and deciding same on such special oath‑‑Appellate Tribunal while accepting appeal directed Labour Court to decide matter on merits in conventional manner. The decision, dated 13‑5‑1986, recorded by the learned Labour Court No.9, Multan, has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑instatement in service was accepted on the short ground that as proposed, he had taken the special oath on the Holy Quran but the appellant refused to do so.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that 16 yards of cloth was stolen by him which was recovered from him at the gate wrapped round his legs. An F.I.R. was also got registered against the respondent and he had been arrested and sent to jail. The charge‑sheet was given to the respondent but he replied that since the case was before the criminal Court, enquiry should not be held. The enquiry letter was also issued to him but he took up the same plea. He, therefore, did not join the enquiry.

3. Where special oath is proposed, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the party who had refused to accept the proposal or refused to take the special oath. The appellant had in the present case A not accepted the proposal of the respondent but in spite of it special oath was administered to the respondent by the learned lower Court. The other defect is that oath was administered to the respondent not in accordance with the proposal made by him but differently. There le was on the record written admission made by the respondent. In the beginning, he had disowned his thumb‑impression on it, but at a subsequent stage, he took up the plea that at the time of entry into service, his thumb‑impressions were obtained on certain blank papers and utilizing any of those papers, the alleged admission may have been forged on it. The proposal made by the respondent was that if the appellant took oath on the Holy Quran and said that at the time of appointment signatures of the respondent were not received on some blank papers his petition be dismissed. The appellant did not accept this proposal and refused to take the special oath. The oath which was administered to the respondent was on the point of theft and not to the effect that at the time of entry into service thumb‑impressions of the respondent had been received on blank papers. So, for the reasons given above, the learned lower Court was not justified in not deciding the case in the conventional manner and deciding it on special oath.

4. As a result of what has been discussed above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded for decision on merits in the conventional manner. A. A????