1994 PLP 70 (PLC)

DECISION The appellant was working as a Carpenter with the respondent. There was a strike of the workers on the 2nd of October, 1990 as the respondent had made certain deductions from their emoluments. There was agitational activity on the 4th also, with the result that police had to be sent for.

2. On the 13th of October there was a Public Notice in the Daily Jang calling upon a few of the employees of the respondent to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for incitement of the workers culminating in the ugly scenes and the consequent cessation of work.

3. The appellant had given a reply to the same and as the respondents e not satisfied about the same, an enquiry was ordered which was to be conducted by one SJ.A. Zaidi. The appellant, to begin with had participated therein and a number of witnesses were examined. He had also intimated his intention to examine two defence witnesses whom he had named, and the utter was adjourned for that purpose for the 28th of October.

4. However. on the appointed day neither he nor his witnesses appeared brfore the Enquiry Officer. The appellant's version is that they were not allowed to enter the office of the Enquiry Officer and the rival version is that he had deliberately opted to boycott the proceedings. Be that as it may, the proceedings were finalised that day ex parte. The appellant came to be dismissed once the report had been presented to the authorities.

5. After settling the preliminaries, the appellant had preferred a petition where he was his own witness. The respondent had examined Syed Azhar Muhammad Hussain their Personnel Manager. The Enquiry Officer was not examined as according to Azhar Hussain he had left his service with the respondent in May, 1991.

6. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

7. The statements of Carnet the Chief Administrator and Khalid Waheed had been earlier recorded in English. However, the record clearly shows' that the contents were translated and read out to the appellant. Muhammad Azhar Hussain who was the third witness therein, had also lent support to the version as furnished by the earlier 2 witnesses. The appellant in his turn showed his satisfaction with the enquiry, and all that he had to say was that he wanted to produce two witnesses of his own in defence on the adjourned hearing. He had. also admitted in his statement that there was a Hartal which he had joined. He also mentions the arrival of the police at the scene and his return to the house sometime after the arrival of the police.

8. It is true that he insinuates that he had been run down because of the formation of the union, but on his own showing he was not an office‑bearer thereof. His brother Khalid Zamir who was also, an employee of the respondent had earned the wrath of some of the members of the senior staff, but it is nobody's case that he had come to any harm. The Public Notice also clearly mentions that the appellant was one of the ring leaders, and that is what Carnet also had to say though his version was derivative.

9. The version of the appellant that he was not permitted to have the evidence of his witnesses recorded in the enquiry is too much of a demand on one's credulity. With the main allegations owned by the appellant himself, they could scarcely be of any service to him. Nothing smacks of any ill‑will or vengeance either.

10. I am of the opinion that the order is not open to exception. I will therefore uphold the order, and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2233/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.