' SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, J.--- The instant labour appeal has arisen out of a petition under Industrial Relations Ordinance filed by the appellant in the Court of District Judge/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Islamabad. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employee of respondent- establishment and dismissed from service on 26-5-2000 on certain charges. The appellant served the respondent with grievance notice and thereafter filed labour petition. The respondent contested the petition by filing written reply. The parties were directed to produce their respective evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Labour Court, Islamabad accepted the petition on 6-8-2003. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Honourable High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The learned single Judge disposing of the appeal upheld the decision of the labour Court to the extent of reinstatement of the appellant whereas the respondent was also directed to proceed against the appellant strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
The question of back-benefits of the appellant was left subject to result of such proceedings.
2. The respondent under the directions of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court initiated proceedings against the appellant and issued show-cause notice and consequently terminated the appellant on 26-3-2004. The appellant again filed petition in the learned Labour Court, Islamabad against his termination order and the same was contested by the respondent and the learned Labour Court after recording of evidence of both the parties and hearing of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the petition of the appellant along with other employees in a consolidated judgment on 6-2-2007. The appellant has challenged the validity and propriety of the judgment dated 6-2-2007 through the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that despite clear direction of the learned Single Judge of the Honourable Lahore High Court, the respondent has failed to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of section 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Ordinance, 1968. The learned counsel further submitted that neither the respondent has issued any charge-sheet/show cause notice nor an opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the circumstances of alleged incident and allegations against him. The learned Labour Court, Islamabad has not adverted to the violations of mandatory provisions of law on the subject.
It is further added that the statements of witnesses recorded against the appellant were already prepared and the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, therefore, the inquiry conducted by the officer was against all the canons of natural justice. The appellant was not provided with any charge sheet conveying any specific charges attributed to him and also no chance was provided to produce any defence even during the inquiry proceedings allegedly conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel further contended that the complete inquiry proceedings have neither been submitted in the Court no Inquiry Officer was produced in the Court as witness to support his report, therefore, the impugned decision is based on an incomplete record of inquiry and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel to support his above said contentions relied upon Crescent Jute Products Ltd. v. Muhammad Yaqub and others 1989 PLC 499 and Wyeth Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd. And others v. Rafi-ud-Din and others 1989 PLC 74.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
The respondent has adopted proper procedure in accordance with law and in the light of inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer the appellant was terminated. Learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parities and perused the record.
6. After direction of the Honourable Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, the respondent- establishment issued a letter to the appellant on 22-11-2003 and narrated the entire background of the incident dated 24-5-2000 and directed him to appear before the Inquiry Officer as required by him. The Inquiry Officer issued another notice to the appellant on 25-11-2003 to take part in the inquiry proceedings. The perusal of inquiry report reveals that inquiry officer has duly provided opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant. The inquiry report, letters dated 22-11-2003, 25- 11-2003 and 8-3-2004 have been produced in evidence by the appellant himself. The Honourable Supreme Court in Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah and another PLD 1981 SC 225 observed as follows:--- ' In the provision under consideration the requirement is only in regard to the information to be given of the alleged misconduct and of giving an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. All that this conveys is: firstly, an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence which the workman can only do, provided he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; and secondly, an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses and by examining himself or any other witness in support of his defence.
' The above said observation was followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarfraz v. General Manager (Leaf), Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. And others 1988 SCM R 1352 which reads as under:--- "This provision was interpreted in Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v: Guftar Shah PLD 1981 SC 225 and it was held that neither the giving of second show-cause notice nor the supplying of the report of the inquiry officer is a requirement of principles of natural justice. All that is needed in the circumstances is to give a fair opportunity of hearing and defence to the other side so as to fulfill the requirement of natural justice."
7. In view of above said law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that neither any charge-sheet/show-cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant has no force. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant during the arguments was that incomplete inquiry report was submitted in the learned trial Court without examining the Inquiry Officer and it has lots its evidentiary value and the learned lower Court has fell in grave error while passing the impugned judgment on the basis of inquiry report. The learned counsel for the appellant has himself produced the inquiry report in evidence in the learned lower Court and no effort was made to summon the complete record of inquiry report or the Inquiry Officer by the appellant, therefore, the learned lower Court has rightly taken into consideration the inquiry report in the evidence. The unfortunate incident in the respondent premises has not been denied and criminal proceedings are also pending in the Court. The stand taken by the appellant that he has not participated in the incident occurred in the premises of the establishment has not been supported by any independent witness on behalf of the appellant. On the other side, the appellant has himself admitted in cross-examination that there was no enmity between the witnesses produced by the respondent in inquiry proceedings. Admittedly a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant and consequently an inquiry was conducted on the allegation of misconduct and appellant has participated in the inquiry and on the basis of the report of Inquiry Officer the order of dismissal was passed by the respondent.
8. In view of the above said discussion, the learned lower Court has properly appreciated the record and passed the impugned judgment in accordance with law. Therefore, the appeal has no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.