1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this appeal under section 48 of I.R.0.2002, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad dated 18-8-2005 in Grievance Application No,43 of 2000 Ikramuddin v. Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited, whereby the grievance application of the respondent was allowed and he was reinstated in service with full back-benefits.
2. ' The case of the appellant in brief is that the respondent was working as seasonal employee of the appellant during the crushing season. During the course of his employment he committed misbehave with Shift Engineer Ali Asghar and also beaten him mercilessly, he was, therefore, served with the show-cause notice and his reply was not considered satisfactory, therefore, the enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him and Imtiaz Ahmed Store Officer of the appellant was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who served notice on the respondent for his appearance before him on the date mentioned in the said notice. The respondent in pursuance of the said notice, appeared before the Enquiry Officer applied for adjournment on the ground that his coworker was not in attendance and in his absence he cannot participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer instead of granting time to the respondent allowed him two hours time to participate in the enquiry proceedings, but after expiry of two hours the respondent, did not turn up, as such, the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and after recording statements of the witnesses submitted his report to the appellant, who on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, terminated the services of the respondent. The respondent after termination of his service, served notice under section 46(1) of the I.R.O. 2002 which was not responded by the appellant, hence he filed application before the learned lower Court, who summoned the appellant. The appellant filed his written statement, inter alia, challenging the locus standi of the respondent to file petition for his reinstatement and that the application filed before the learned lower Court was time-barred and that the respondent committed misbehave with the Shift Engineer and after proper enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer he was removed from the service.
3. ' The learned lower Court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition thereby directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with full back-benefits. The appellant being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned lower Court has preferred present appeal.
4. ' I have heard both the learned counsel for parties.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the respondent has committed misbehave with the Shift Engineer of the appellant and after holding proper enquiry he was found guilty of committing misconduct and was rightly removed from the service and the learned lower Court was not justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent, as such, the order passed by the learned lower Court is against the material available before it and is liable to reverse.
6. ' The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the enquiry was not conducted legally and properly and the respondent was allowed only two hours time to participate in the enquiry proceedings, which was against the canons of law, justice, equity and principle of natural justice, as such, learned lower Court rightly ordered for reinstatement of the respondent.
7. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before me.
8. ' It is an admitted position that the respondent was working as Seasonal Turbine Attendant in the factory of the appellant, who was served with show-cause notice on 27th December, 1999 for having committed misconduct by beaten the Shift Engineer namely Ali Asghar. The laid allegations by its nature are very serious and demands initiation of enquiry, which was in fact ordered by the appellant by appointment of one Imtiaz Ahmed, Store Officer to conduct enquiry against him.
9. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer served the notice on respondent for his appearance before him and the respondent in pursuance of said notice appeared before him and applied for adjournment for two days on the ground that his co-worker was not in attendance and in absence of his coworker he could not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer did not allow the adjournment and allowed two hours time to the respondent to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The said two hours time, in any way, is not justified and sufficient time to delinquent worker to put forward his defence before the Enquiry Officer. The grant of two hours time is not supported with any provision of law or the case-law to hold the act of Enquiry Officer as lawful. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in absence of the respondent and recorded the statements of the witnesses and the said act of the Enquiry Officer appears to be in violation of principle of natural justice, who did not afford any chance to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer was in so much hurry and on the same day he submitted his report to the appellant, who also on receipt of the enquiry report immediately terminated the service of the respondent. The conduct of the Enquiry Officer shows that he was more loyal to the monarch, in taking action against the appellant and from his conduct it appears that he did not proceed with the enquiry in fair and impartial manner. The learned lower Court rightly observed that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry legally and properly and the learned counsel for the appellant also failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by learned lower Court.
10. ' In view of aforesaid legal proposition involved in the appeal, the appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. However, the reinstatement of the respondent has been ordered because of the reason that enquiry was not conducted properly. The allegations against the respondent were very serious in nature and the appellant is at liberty to conduct fresh enquiry against the respondent, in case, if sufficient material against him to conduct the enquiry is available, and in that event any observation made by this Court or by the lower Court will not influence to the enquiry proceedings.