1992 PLC 312 (PLP)

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Latif Saghar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1991. It is alleged that on 5th and 6th of June, 1989, the appellant alongwith other employees addressed a meeting of the workers in the Canteen of the factory premises wherein they had instigated the co-workers to resort to go slow with the work, and had also hurled abuses on the Director and the members of the staff. A charge-sheet was issued con 8-6-1989 and was replied to. It transpires that out of 15 or 16 persons who are alleged to have been responsible for the disturbance and incitement, the appellant and the General Sezretary of the Union were made to face the enquiry and dismissed from service.

2. The enquiry proceedings were to be held against the appellant on 13-6-1989, but, on that date, there was a request for adjournment on the part of the appellant and it was postponed for the 17th of June, 1989. On the 17th June, 1989, the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and his version is that he had been apprehended from the gate of the factory by the Police. The proceedings therefore remained ex parte and eventually by order, dated 1-7-1989 he was dismissed from service.

3. It is alleged that the- appellant had sent a grievance notice to the employers which was never replied to. Later on the grievance petition was filed in the Labour Court. The written reply showed that the appellant had never cared to appear in the proceedings; the witnesses were examined in his absence and that the management being satisfied with the enquiry report had ordered his dismissal.

4. The learned Presiding Officer, however, found that as there was no grievance notice given to the Employer; the grievance petition did not lie at all. I am afraid this finds no support from the record. The receipt of the grievance notice was unequivocally admitted in paragraph 7 of the written statement which has been wrongly mentioned by the applicant as paragraph

8. Further, the appellant has produced the postal receipt of the despatch of the notice and the normal presumption would otherwise have been in his favour.

5. It is also to be seen that the appellant had made an application before the Labour Court to examine a member of Police Department from Landhi Police Station in support of his contentions that on 17-6-1989, when the enquiry proceedings were to be held; he was under arrest. On 4 dates no witness from Police Station turned up and thereafter the application for summoning the witness was withdrawn as the appellant seemingly had been tired out.

6. Since the petition was .in order, the question remains to examine as to whether the dismissal was in order? It has to be seen that the first information 8 report had been lodged by a member of the rival union and the witnesses produced before the Enquiry Officer also came from that group. It is also to be noted that the appellant had won the election and was the Joint Secretary. Patently all love must have been lost between the parties and this being the situation, their testimony needed careful examination. There is no apparent reason as to why there was all this incitement against the management. There. is nothing on -record to show that there was any ferment in the organisation or that they were nursing any grudge. Otherwise too, 15 and 16 speakers had made defiant speeches within 15 minutes during the tea break and the witnesses had not explicitly mentioned even the words used by them. Obviously, it was a make-believe evidence being furnished from suspects quarters and was of a tabloid nature. What was more even the Enquiry Officer has not been examined and there is no explanation for the same.

7. In the circumstances as brought on the record it was a case of frame up and the entire story cannot be said to be free from doubt. There is no question of a fresh enquiry. It is a fit case where his contentions should prevail. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with back benefits. H.B.T./2006/Lb.S Appeal allowed.