1999 PLP 496 (PLC)

The management constituted a domestic enquiry on the said complaint and sent as many as ten postal envelopes containing charge‑sheet, which all returned undelivered to him. They are all placed on the file and marked R/3 to R/21 at pages 71 to 107 of the grievance petition. As the notices through registered post, could not be served on the appellant, a notice was got published by the appellant in daily Jang dated 22‑11‑1995. The appellant, thereupon, participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after recording statement of the complainant, appellant and witness Abdul Razzaq, General Secretary recommended for his dismissal from service for gross misconduct. The management accepting the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, dismissed him from service by letter dated 11‑11‑1995. The appellant, then, served a grievance notice, as required under section 25‑A (1) of the I.R.O., 1969. Having received no reply, he filed the grievance application before the learned Sindh Labour Court No VI at Hyderabad. Therein the appellant examined himself as his sole witness. The respondent, however, examined two witnesses namely Ghulam Sarwar Qureshi, Personnel Manager and Khawar Siddiqui, the Enquiry Officer, and after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance application by his decision dated 2‑7‑1998, against which the above appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. Mr. Moosa Laghari, learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions:‑‑ (1) That the punishment of dismissal was out of proportion and quite harsh. (2) That the management, in the first instance, appointed Mr. Rashid Nasir, Production Engineer, who was, later on, replaced by Mr. Khawar Siddiqui, Resident Engineer, which was mala fide on the part of the management. (3) The Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration the patch‑up between the complainant and the appellant due to the intervention of some officers of the C.B.A; (4) The whole statement of the complainant was not considered by the Enquiry Officer, but only a part of it was considered and made basis of the misconduct, resulting in dismissal.

5. As regards the first point, Mr. Raees Mushtaq submits that the appellant had twice committed misconduct, once he was forgiven on tendering apology, which fact, has been admitted by him in his cross- examination, as such, this time, no mild treatment was meted out to him, as he had gone to the extent of giving a threat of killing the complainant Muhammad Naseem for non‑issuing sick leave certificate which request was not based on facts.

6. As regards the change of Enquiry Officer Mr. Raees Mushtaq submits that first Enquiry Officer was changed because he declined to act as Enquiry Officer. There was no option left with the management, but to appoint another Enquiry Officer.

7. As regards the third point that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the whole statement, made by Muhammad Naseem, but only a portion incriminating him with gross misconduct. The Enquiry Officer was supposed to make enquiry as to the misconduct on the day of incident i.e. 10th October, 1995. The question of patching up was between the two individuals, which cannot be the basis of dropping the enquiry, if otherwise, there was sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the appellant as to misconduct. Even otherwise "the patching up" did not bind the management as it involves the question of maintaining discipline in the p' appellant company and its factory, as the incident took place within factory premises.

8. I have read, with the learned counsel for the respondent, the entire decision, word by word, and I see no justification to interfere with the said decision. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Announced in open Court, this the 18th day of March, 1999. H.B.T./250/K/Lab. (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.