1984 PLP 873 (PLC(CS))

Abdul Waheed for Respondent Date of hearing : 1Itb June, 1983. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 30th, March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. Two charge‑sheets were given each containing more than one allegation. Enquiries were made separately in respect of the charge‑sheets but by one order of dismissal the services of the respondent were put to an end. Exh. R‑1, charge‑sheet is dated 31st May, 1980. The allegations, according to the charge‑sheet Exh. R‑I, are that on 26th May, 1980 Mr. Ashfaq Gill, Supervisor, asked the respondent to remove dust from the damaged buckets of DF‑2 rotar but the respondent refused saying that the work was below his status. On 27th May, 1980 the respondent again disobeyed the order of Mr. Gill by refusing to sprinkle water on the cemented portion of exhaust fans. Enquiry proceedings relating to the said charge‑sheet are Exh. R‑

6. The prosecution witnesses supported both the charges contained in charge‑sheet Exh. R‑

1. They were not cross- examined by the respondent although opportunity was given. Ashfaq Gill, Muhammad Khalid and Allah Ditta P. Ws. deposed about the incident, dated 26th May, 1980 whereas Javed Iqbal, Notail Sparton and Ashfaq Gill deposed about the incident, dated 2'7th May, 1980. The respondent examined about the incident dated 26th May, 1980, Muhammad Iqbal, and Muhammad Amin. Regarding the incident dated 27th May, 1980 he examined Muhammad Asghar, Khan Bahadur, Muhammad Javed and Shabbir Hussain. They said that the respondent was not asked to sprinkle water on the cemented portion of the exhaust fans. They were not cross‑examined. Muhammad Asghar said that the work of sprinkling water was entrusted to him and Muhammad Khalid and not to the respondent. Muhammad Javed and Khan Bahadur supported them. The evidence of Muhammad Asghar cannot The ignored. He positively said that the work of sprinkling water on the cemented portion of the exhaust fans was entrusted to him and he actually did not. He was not cross‑examined, meaning that what he had said was accepted. About other defence witnesses it may be said that they may not be knowing about the real situation but Muhammad Asghar not only falsified the charge but said that not the respondent but he (the witness) was asked to do that work and that he actually did it. Why Muhammad Asghar would have belied his supervisor Mr. Gill when no enmity was suggested and why he should have out of the way supported the respondent when it was not suggested that he had in any manner soft corner for him. So far as the incident, dated 26th May, 1980 is concerned, the evidence of defence witness Muhammad Iqbal cannot be ignored. He said that he was the mechanic and the respondent was only his helper and that the work of removing the rotar was entrusted to him which he along with the helper (respondent) did. Muhammad Amin (D. W.) supported him in this res pect. The learned lower Court rightly disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. and Justifiably believed the evidence of the D. Ws. So, it is doubtful if charge contained in charge‑sheet Exh. R‑I stood proved.

3. So far as charge‑sheet Exh. R‑7 is concerned the allegations are that on 12th May, 1980 the respondent misbehaved with Mr. Ashfaq Gill when the latter enquired the reasons for late coming and that on 19th May, 1980 the respondent instigated Muhammad Aslam to disobey the order of the Supervisor Haider, Ali to perform his duties instead by lying down idle and that he abused the said Supervisor. So far as the incident dated 19th May, 1980 is concerned, the respondent said that it was lunch time between 12‑30 to 1‑00 p. m. He was neither cross‑examined, nor any witness said that 12‑30 to 1‑00 p. m. was not a lunch time. Since at 12‑40 there was lunch break, the allegation is false.

4. So far as the respondent being late, on 12th May, 1980 is concerned, no documentary evidence was produced. If the respondent had been late, he would have marked as such and the attendance register produced in evidence. The other allegations made by Mr. Ashfaq Gill, Supervisor, have been found to be wrong, so this allegation also may be B incorrect. The respondent was, therefore, rightly directed to be reinstated in service.

5. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.