1995 PLP 84 (PLC)

He did not give any reply for the same but had asked as under: ............................ Certified copy of the complaint lodged by Mrs. Syed Zaidi, Jr. Engineer and Mr. Syed Rashid Ali, Engineer, may please be supplied to me under the provision of the Oanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 at an early date so that I may be able to reply the show‑cause notice referred to above." There was some further correspondence and ultimately on 10‑9‑1989 there was an order of enquiry.

3. The petitioner had thereafter filed an application before the N.I.R.C. alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents and a Prohibitory Order was also obtained. Later on the aforesaid application was dismissed and the petitioner after enquiry in which he had participated, was dismissed on 10‑3‑1991. There was another letter which informed him that the respondent‑company had gone into liquidation and had been permitted by the Government of Sindh that the service of all the workers could be terminated as such.

4. The petitioner had thereupon sent a Grievance Notice which was followed by a petition before the Labour Court.

5. The case of the petitioner was that he had been run down on i trumped up charge because he was deeply involved in the union activities which was not to the liking of the respondents. The petition came to be resisted by the respondents.

6. The petitioner was his own witness while Shah Jehan, Manager Legal and Cooperative Affairs, who was the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Labour Court finding the material issue against the petitioner dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

8. During the enquiry proceedings, apart from the two complainants namely Mrs. Saman Zaidi and Syed Rashid Ali, two other witnesses had been examined namely Abdul Ghani, Architect, and Jaffer Imam. Syed Rashid Ali had spoken in clear terms that filthy abuses had been hurled against him and also against Mrs. Saman Zaidi while she had visited him in connection with some discussions. He did not muster courage, as he said, to repeat the vituperative words but wrote them down on a piece of paper which he passed on to the Enquiry Officer. The same had been put on the record. Syed Rashid Ali was not subjected to any cross‑examination. Mrs. Saman Zaidi also narrated these facts and as she also felt embarrassed to repeat the scurrilous words used against them she had written down the same on a separate piece which was passed on to Enquiry Officer and remains on the record. The appellant has spoken well of her during the proceedings and vouched for her respectability.

9. The slips clearly show the depravity of the appellant's mind and the language used against two Senior Officers, one of whom was a lady. There is nothing to suggest that there was any occasion for this loss of temper. The testimony is fully corroborated by Abdul Ghani and Jaffer Imam. Surprisingly they also have not been subjected to any cross‑examination. The three witnesses produced by the appellant in his defence during the enquiry namely Rukhsana, Gul Naz and Mrs. Hassan stopped short by saying that they had no grievance of any kind against the appellant. There was nothing beyond that. That does not go a long way and leaves the testimony of the witnesses of the complainant side unchallenged.

10. Under the circumstances there can be no earthly reason for disbelieving the testimony of the complainants and the two supporting witnesses.

11. Even the enquiry proceedings cannot be said to be open to any exception. The appellant had participated therein. All the pages are duly signed by him. There is no allegation of any sort against the Enquiry Officer and he was examined in the Labour Court. As I had earlier said there was some proceedings against the appellant and the orders challenged by him were set aside by this Tribunal and in the case of transfer, by the High Court, but every case has to be judged on its merits.

12. It is said that he was run down because of his 'union activities. According to him he had been called upon to support the rival union and he had declined, and the show‑cause notice followed. However, on his own showing, he was never an office‑bearer and there is nothing to show that there was any unrest or tussle going on between the workers and the respondents. The suggestions that he had been visited with the respondent's wrath, and the case had been concocted, on that score is wide of the mark. It is true that he had faced some problems earlier. It is also true that he had been allowed Special Leave as his presence was a source of dread and embarrassment to many. But the charge which the appellant faced here was beyond reproach. The two complainants are Engineers and the two corroborating witnesses have no ill‑will to implicate him in a false and fabricated case and they are not speak‑easy witnesses either.

13. In the circumstances of the case I have no hesitation in holding that the charge against him had been duly substantiated. Nor any fault can be found with the conduct of the enquiry proceedings either.

14. In the result the order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2364/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.