1991 PLP 1351(2) (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 24th May, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Balochistan High Court, dated 2nd June, 1988 by which a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed with the result that the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan, allowing an appeal filed by the first respondent was upheld. By that order, Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Quetta, by which petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service of the first respondent with back benefits. The facts of the case as noticed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal are that on 19th May, 1986 at about 9‑45 a.m. petitioner indulged in a disorderly behaviour by going to Liquid section of the respondent‑Company and hurling filthy abuses to one Sarfraz, a fellow workman. The Supervisor, Manzoor Ahmad, tried to stop petitioner from abusing the co‑worker upon which the petitioner is said to have abused the Supervisor and threatened him of dire consequences. On the report of Manzoor Ahmad to the Management, departmental action was taken against the petitioner, and his services were terminated. Petitioner filed a grievance application which was allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Quetta; but, on appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Labour Court, and it was in these circumstances that petitioner filed the Constitution petition in the High Court. The Appellate Tribunal, on perusal of the record, had noticed the fact that "no motive was assigned to Manzoor Ahmad for making accusation against him (petitioner) that he had hurled filthy abuses on the co‑worker and further that Manzoor Ahmad "was neither cross‑examined nor any motive for giving statement was at all assigned to him. Similarly in reply dated 1st June, 1986, to the second show‑cause notice again nothing was even suggested against the complainant". The Tribunal further held as under: "Thus there is hardly any doubt in the version given by Manzoor Ahmed. Evidently Inquiry Officer could not lawfully ignore or reject unchallenged statement of complainant Manzoor Ahmed. The question of corroboration arises only when veracity of statement is at least objected by opposite side. It is settled principle of justice that if a version of a witness is not impeached, or refuted, the same can form strong basis to constitute strong proof against the person who does not challenge the same. Principle of corroboration comes only when credibility statement of the witness is challenged and circumstances reflect that he has some motive or interest or such other basis to falsely implicate respondent. There must exist cause for making incorrect, deposition for the involvement of some body. In the circumstances of this case nothing is established to show that Manzoor Ahmed had any basis or motive for falsely attributing such a filthy and indecent language which perhaps cannot be reproduced and instances thereof are given in his statement before Inquiry Officer dated 29‑5‑1986 (ExA/4). It is also pertinent to notice that sometime prior to this incident, towards second week of March, 1986 a complaint was made by one of the lady workers. During trial of the matter before Labour Court record of enquiry proceedings in that behalf has also been produced. The factum of earlier enquiry has however been admitted by respondent during cross‑examination. It appears that on account of his conduct at that time he was merely transferred from Liquid section to that of Packing section. It may be seen that Inquiry Officer gave full opportunity to respondent for explaining accusation against him. He was provided facility to cross‑examine complainant or to lead evidence. This aspect not only transpires from the enquiry report but is also unequivocally admitted by respondent in his statement before trial Court. The Inquiry Officer has believed unchallenged version of the complainant. There does not appear to be any impropriety, illegality or perversity in the finding arrived at by him. Evidently all the requirements of law for holding enquiry were fully complied." For the reasons above and other detailed reasons, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the order, dated 17th May, 1987. Learned Judges of the Division Bench in the High Court who dealt with the Constitution petition refused to interfere in the case on the grounds which may also usefully be mentioned hereunder: "It has been contended before us that the petitioner was target of Trade Union Activities and evidence of Manzoor Ahmed and Sarfaraz was not reliable which also lacked corroboration. These are the facts which require appreciation of evidence on record which we fear we could not do in our Constitutional jurisdiction. No violation of rules or mis-appreciation of the evidence is alleged. Hence we find that there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs." After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which are bare repetition of those which were urged before the High Court, we find that on the evidence proved on record no exception can be taken with the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and also the High Court by declining to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./N‑273/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Petition dismissed.