1982 PLP 580 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 1st June, 1978 and dated 23rd December, 1978 passed by the learned 1st Sind Labour Curt at Karachi and the learned Sind Appellate Tribunal at Karachi respectively in Application No. 254(77 and Appeal No. KAR‑230/78 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent No. I was working with the Petitioner, company as a Statisti cal Assistant since 22nd May, 1968. It seems that the petitioner inter alia issued a show‑cause notice dated 15th October, 1974, calling upon respondent No. 1 to show cause, as to why he had not submitted monthly statistic reports for the months mentioned in the show‑cause notice within the time provided for. It may be pertinent to quote hereinbelow the details of the above months, namely Month Due on Delivered on Delay June, 1974 4‑7‑74 5‑11‑74 21 working days July, 1974 6‑8‑74 30‑9‑76 37 Aug. 1974 5‑9‑74 Not yet received 25 Sept. 1974 4‑10‑74 Not yet received 6 It further seems that the above show‑cause notice was followed by a charge‑sheet dated 13th November, 1974. After the service of the above charge‑sheet, one Zafar Siddiqui was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. But respondent No 1 raised objection to his appointment. Mr. Zafar had held certain enquiry proceedings. However, the petitioner appoin ted another Enquiry Officer Mr. Aftab Ahmed, who had commenced the enquiry proceedings on 17th April, 1975. It seems from the enquiry record that on 17th April, 1975 the stand taken by respondent No. 1 was that he was appearing before the Enquiry Officer under protest on the ground that the Enquiry was mala fide to punish him on account of his Trade Union activities being the General Secretary of the Union, and, therefore, did not cross‑examine any witness. However, on 18th April, 1.975 he came out with the statement that he would like to cross examine the witnesses and would also make his own statement. It also seems that on 23rd April, 1975 he requested the Enquiry Officer to allow him to produce Mr. S. A. Rizvi, Zubaida Naqvi and Sahab Alam as his witnesses. However, this request was declined by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that these persons were no longer in the employ ment of the Petitioner company. Consequently, enquiry was concluded without allowing respondent No. 1 to produce his above witnesses. After that respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service on 28th May, 1975. Respondent No. I being aggrieved by the above order filed afore said application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., before the learned 1st Sind Labour Court at Karachi, which was allowed and the petitioner were directed to reinstate respondent No. 1 with full back benefits on the ground that the enquiry was not fairly conducted. At the same time the learned Labour Court allowed the petitioner to hold a fresh enquiry, if they chose to do so. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid Appeal I No. KAR‑230/78 before the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 23rd December, 1978. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the above two orders have tiled the above petition.

2. In support of the above petition Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the Courts erred in not appreciating that respondent No. 1 wanted to lead evidence to prove the alleged mala fide on the part of the higher executives of the petitioner company, which could not have been done before the Enquiry Officer as the only competent forum where this question could be raised was the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. It was further urged by him that in fact a fair opportunity was provided by the Enquiry Officer to respondent No. 1, and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below that the Enquiry was not fair, was not in con sonance with the record of the enquiry. In our view, the above conten tions are devoid of any force. Respondent No. 1 was entitled to raise whatever plea he wanted to raise before the Enquiry Officer. In any case respondent No. 1 while requesting to produce the above witnesses had not stated that he wanted to produce those witnesses in order to prove mala fide on the part of the higher executives of the petitioner‑Company. Respondent No. 1 was entitled in law to produce evidence in defence which right was denied by the Enquiry Officer. It may be observed that the request was made by respondent No. 1 on 23rd April, 1975 and the same was declined as stated hereinabove on the ground that the aforesaid witnesses were no longer in the employment of the petitioner Company. In our view, if the Enquiry Officer was not in a position to summon the above witnesses, he could have provided an opportunity to respondent No. I to produce the above witnesses for himself, and in case he would have failed to produce them on the next date of hearing, he could have closed the enquiry. The concurrent finding of the two Courts below to the effect that the enquiry was not fair cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record. In our view both the Courts were competent in law to conclude the above finding and, therefore, the above two orders cannot be interfered with. by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction as the impugned orders neither can be said to be in excess of jurisdiction nor can be termed as without jurisdiction. The Sind Labour Court as well as the Sind Appellate Labour were the Courts of compe tent jurisdiction to record their finding on the aforesaid question.

3. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the above petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.