This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court (Northern Zone), Lahore. The impugned order was passed on 30th December 1968, on an application under section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), for permission to dismiss the respondent. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these.
2. The respondent was an employee of the Company. It is said that on 28th April 1968, at about 1-30 p.m. the respondent assaulted and abused another employee Mr. Azhar Ali Abbasi. He was charge- sheeted and an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charge.
The respondent was an office-bearer of the Trade Union and as an industrial dispute was pending, permission of the Court to dismiss tire respondent had to be taken. The learned Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was not given an opportunity to examine his defence witnesses.
3. Mr. Mahmud Zaman, the learned Advocate for the appellants, contended that in the circumstances of the present case the respondent cannot be said to have been deprived of the opportunity to examine his defence witnesses. The circumstances were like this. The respondent had requested the Enquiry Officer to call his defence witnesses. He could not bring them himself, as they were the employees of the Management and they were afraid to come along with him as his witnesses. On the other hand, respondent thought it very convenient, if the Enquiry Officer had 'requested the Management on his behalf to allow the defence witnesses, who were is the employment of the Management, to appear as the witnesses for the respondent. Mr. Mahmud Zaman submitted that the Enquiry Officer was not bound under any provision of law or rule to summon the witnesses for the respondent. It is true, there is no such rule or law. On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer could make a request on behalf of the respondent to allow the witnesses for the respondent to appear on any particular date. It had not been urged before me that the respondent was summoning a large number of witnesses unnecessarily only to harms the Management.
Where a person, against whom an enquiry is being held, makes reasonable request to the Enquiry Officer not with a view to harass the Management or prolong the hearing of the case, the Enquiry Officer must help the person charge-sheeted to clear his conduct. He should equally give a fair chance to the complainant to establish the guilt against the person charge-sheeted. No hardand fast rule can be laid down enumerating the duties of the Enquiry Officer in keeping with equity and good conscience. The Enquiry Officer must act impartially and must assist both the parties to help him to arrive at a right conclusion. Mr. Mahmud Zaman relied on a decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in 1964 PLC 810, in support of the contention that it was the duty of the workman to produce his witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. It is true that it is, the duty of the complainant and the accused workman to produce their witnesses. If, however, the workman requested the Enquiry Officer to write to the Management to permit some person to appear as his witness, the Enquiry Officer, if he was satisfied that the request was legitimate and not with a view to prolong the proceedings, should request the Management to grant leave to the witnesses to appeal before him on a particular date or dates. It is open to the Enquiry Officer to satisfy himself that this step was not being taken only to prolong the proceedings or harass the Management, The Enquiry Officer must act with caution and as a reasonable person. In the present case, the respondent's case was that his witnesses were not willing to accompany him to appear as his witnesses. On the other hand, if they were summoned through the Enquiry Officer, they could appear and throw light on the circumstances leading to his charge-sheet. I think the Enquiry Officer should have written a letter of request to the Management to permit the workmen to appear as the witnesses of the respondent, either on one date or on two dates. No legitimate ground has been made out by the learned Advocate for the appellant to interfere with the order of the learned Industrial Court.
Mr.Mahmud Zaman, however, contended that the attempt of the respondent was to prolong the proceedings of the domestic enquiry. Mr. Naz agrees that the Enquiry Officer may finish the enquiry in the month of May 1969. His client would give all reasonable help to the Enquiry Officer to finish the enquiry in the month of May 1969. The Enquiry Officer should start the enquiry proceedings soon and after giving all reasonable opportu--nity to the respondent to meet the case of the Management submit his report to the Management. The appeal with these observations is dismissed.