' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of L.A. Nos.44 and 45/2004 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 4-1-2002 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Ferozwala whereby grievance petition filed by respondents was accepted.
3. Relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that respondents (Ghulam Qadir and Mehboob Ali) were serving as workers with the appellants. They were served with charge sheets on 14-11-1995 that on 13-11-1995 at about 7.00 A.M. They gave beating to 'Worker (Muhammad Ayyaz son of Muhammad Riaz) and abused the watchman The respondents filed reply and regular enquiry was conducted against them. After receipt of enquiry report, the appellants dismissed the respondents from service vide orders dated 29-11-1995. The respondents filed grievance petitions which were accepted and cases were remanded with permission to hold fresh enquiry but they were again dismissed from service vide order dated 6-9-2001. The respondents served grievance notices and filed grievance petitions. The appellant mentioned in reply that during enquiry the allegations levelled against the respondents were proved. Also that respondents were given fair chance to produce their evidence and that enquiry officer was not biased against respondents.
Learned trial Court recorded evidence and accepted the grievance petitions brought by respondents vide judgments dated 4-1-2002. Hence these appeals.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. As mentioned above, respondents were serving as workers with the appellant. They were served with charge sheets dated 14-11-1995. The allegation against the respondents is that they gave beating to Muhammad Ayyaz (employee of the factory) and abused 'Chowkidar' of the factory. The respondents examined Muhammad Ayyaz son of Muhammad Riaz as P.W.1 in support of their case.
He (Muhammad Ayyaz) stated that on 13-11-1995, he was posted in confectionery section and he remained on duty from 6-30 A.M. To 2-30 P.M. He further stated that no report was made against him by his office about his absence from duty. The witness clearly deposed that on 13-11-1995 he did not quarrel with Ghulam Qadir and Mehboob Ali (respondents) and that they had not given him beating. He also deposed that allegations levelled against respondents are false. P.W.2 Saddar Din, P.W.3, Amjad Ali and P.W.4 Rao Muhammad Saleem also made similar statements. So it is clear that appellant has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the respondents. The appellant produced Syed Muhammad Rafique (Inquiry Officer) as R.W.1 and Munna Masih as R.W.2. The appellant also examined R.W.3, Abdul Latif, who was working as Watchman. However statements of R.W.1, R.W.2 and R.W.3 are not convincing and confidence inspiring and the same cannot be believed. The most important aspect of the case is that inquiry officer (R.W.1) has mentioned in his report (Exh.P.4) that accused/respondents have failed to prove that no such occurrence took place. It was for the appellant to prove the charges levelled against the respondents. However Inquiry Officer observed that it was the duty of accused/respondents to prove their innocence, hence enquiry report is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise P.W.1 (Muhammad Ayyaz) is the star witness and he has not supported the case of appellant. So it is clear that appellant has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents, therefore, there was no justification to dismiss the respondents from service. As such order of dismissed is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgments are just and proper. The judgments dated 4-1-2002 show that learned trial Court has decided the grievance petitions brought by respondents after considering the entire material available on record. Learned trial Court observed that:-- "It was alleged by the respondent establishment that the petitioner mal-handled Mr. Muhammad Ayyaz. The said victim Mr. Ayyaz appeared before the inquiry officer and the labour Court declaring that the alleged incident did not occur at all. The assertion is supported through statements of witnesses Rao Muhammad Saleem, Sadar ud Din, Amjad Ali, and the petitioner. The inquiry officer disbelieved the witnesses produced in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it was quite impossible for a human being to work continuously for eight hours. It was also impossible to supervise another coworker for eight hours while he himself was in harness. The inquiry officer observed that there was contradiction in the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioner as one witness stated the time of break fist at 8-30 and the other stated it at 9-30. The inquiry officer disbelived the witnesses on the said contradiction. According to him none could work continuously for eight hours. The statement of Muhammad Ayyaz, the victim is rejected by the inquiry officer on the ground that he had stated that he had seen the incident dated 13-11-1995. The inquiry officer considered his statement as baseless. The analysis of the evidence made by the inquiry officer is based on conjectures and surmises. In the last lines of the inquiry report it is recorded that the charge against the accused stood proved for the simple reason that the accused could not satisfactorily prove his innocence. It is an established law that it is the prosecution, which has to prove the charge. The accused is never responsible to prove his innocence. But the inquiry officer is bent upon that the accused should have proved his innocence.
The law which requires the accused to prove the innocence are repugnant to all international laws and the constitutions. Such laws are always considered against fundamental rights. It is important to note that even such opposed law does not exist in labour laws. The learned counsel for the respondent failed to point out any such law under labour laws under which the accused has to prove his innocence. The conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer is totally baseless and against facts. It cannot be relied upon. The conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer is reproduced for ready reference:- {{URDU TEXT}} (Enquiry Report Exh.R.-4)
' The learned counsel for the respondent referred to 1969 PLC 216 wherein it was reported that no strict procedure was prescribed, for the inquiry. Procedure adopted should not, however, prejudice accused. Inquiry Officer was not bound to follow rules of procedure of a Court or to apply provisions of Evidence Act. It is quitte true that the inquiry officer is not bound to follow specific procedure but he is bound to follow the procedure which does not prejudice the accused. The inquiry officer adopted the procedure that the accused should prove his innocence. It certainly prejudiced the accused i,e,, the petitioner. The approach of the inquiry officer is totally incorrect which initiated the inquiry. The charge against the petitioner is not proved. The petitioner was illegally dismissed from service."
' These are well reasoned judgments. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same. The case of respondents is that after dismissal they remained jobless. There is nothing on record to show that they had joined any service during the said period. As such learned trial Court has rightly reinstated them into service with back-benefits.
6. For what has been discussed above I am of the considered opinion that these appeals have no force and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.