' These 3 appeals by employees of the respondent Construction Company are directed against a common decision, given by the learned Vth Labour Court, on 8th September 1979, dismissing their grievance applications challenging their dismissal from service.
2. The appellants, Abdul Rehman, Nizamuddin and Mohammad Yousaf Ansari, were employed by the respondent company as Khalasi helper, Junior Store-keeper and Junior Supervisor respectively.
It appears that Abdul Rehman and Mohammad Yousuf Ansan were transferred to Saudi Arabia for working there with a branch of the respondent-Company, but the Manager, Personnel and Administration of the respondents at Jeddah, retransferred the appellants to Karachi. So far as appellant Nizamuddin is concerned, he was first posted as Stores Assistant at Abu Dhabi, but he too was transferred back to Pakistan. After their transfer to Pakistan, a show-cause notice was issued to them on 5th November' 1978, alleging that they had established a bogus Recruiting office for employment in the respondent-Company and had dishonestly induced as many as 24 persons, whose names appear in the show-cause notice to pay them various sums of money for getting them employment in the respondent-Company, which amounts they misappropriated. A domestic enquiry followed in which some of the persons whom the appellants had defrauded were examined. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found the charges established against all the 3 appellants, their services were terminated with effect from 11th December 1978. The appellants challenged their dismissal orders before the learned Labour Court which rejected their grievance applications. The appellants have now come up in against the said decision of the learned Labour Court.
3. Mr. Zahid Hamid, the learned counsel for the appellants, attempted to assail the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on several grounds. His first ground of attack was that the action of the learned Labour Court in permitting the deposition of the Enquiry 'Officer in Application.
No, 33/77 by appellants Abdul Rehman to be treated as deposition in the cases of all the 3 appellants without the witness being examined in the other 2 cases, vitiated the proceedings in the said 2 applications. The learned counsel was unable to point out any provision of law prohibiting the adoption of such course. It has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that every procedure which is not expressly prohibited is permitted if it is in A the interest of justice. In the instant case, admittedly, it was at the request of all the parties that the deposition of the Enquiry Officer in Application No, 33/77, was treated as evidence in the other 2 cases also. This procedure was adopted for the convenience of the parties I, therefore, see no substance in this objection of Mr. Zahid.
4. It was next submitted by Mr. Zahid that the complaint against Abdul Rehman, which was shown to him by the Enquiry Officer was not produced before the learned Labour Court. Apart from the fact that no demand was made by the appellant for the production of the said complaint, it is not shown how the non-production of this complaint has prejudiced the case of the appellants or prevented them from making a proper defence.
5. It was next contended by Mr. Zahid that the respondent-Company had first filed the affidavit of their Project Manager, Muhammad Nafees Khan, but he was not produced for cross-examination and hence, he was given up and instead they examined Sarwar Kamal Siddiqui, their Industrial Relations Officer. It may be pointed out that the affidavit of this witness was filed in the learned Labour Court on or about 9th January 1978, in the case of appellant Nizamuddin. He was present on certain hearings but was not cross-examined for one or the other reason and the 3 matters were adjourned from time to time till 22nd July 1977, on which date the learned counsel for the respondent-Company submitted an application that as Mr. Nafees Siddiqui had been transferred to the Middle East and accordingly was not available, therefore, the Court may permit the respondent-Company to file the affidavit of another witness. This application was allowed by the learned Labour Court, by its order, dated 22nd July 1978, and thereafter the affidavit of Sarwar Kamal Siddiqui, was filed on 9th January 1978. There was thus nothing sinister in the non- production of Muhammad Nafees Siddiqui for cross-examination, as it was on account of his being posted in the Middle East and accordingly not being available. Since he was not cross-examined, the learned Labour Court rightly did not consider his affidavit.
6. It was next contended by Mr. Zahid that the Enquiry Officer cannot be considered to be impartial as some of the questions which he had put to the witnesses in the domestic enquiry were suggestive of guilt on the part of the appellants. In support of this contention, the learned counsel was able to refer me to only one question put by the Enquiry Officer to complainant Syed Imran in the enquiry against appellant Nixamuddin. The question was "whether he could state whether Nizamuddin was also an accomplice of Yousuf Ansari and a partner in the bogus Recruiting Agency for sending persons abroad on the National Construction Company's Projects. I see nothing wrong in the Enquiry Officer putting such a question to a person who claimed that he had been defrauded by the appellants. The question has relevancy to the charges against the appellants and it shows anxiety on the part of the Enquiry Officer to get to the truth of the matter.
7. Mr. Zahid also submitted that the appellants had executed an agreement for Foreign Service and, therefore, they should be dealt with in accordance with those agreements. However actions were taken against them by the respondents not in a foreign territory but after they had been posted back in Pakistan. As such, it is not necessary to take into consideration the provisions in the agreements relating to the assignments of the appellants abroad, which in any case do not alter the legal position so far as the action taken against the appellants is concerned,
8. It was finally contended by Mr. Zahid that the charge-sheet against the appellants was time- barred inasmuch as it was not served upon them within one month of their alleged act of misconduct. Apart from the fact that no such pleas was taken by the appellants, either in their grievance notices or the grievance applications, the plea is entirely without substance. The plea is founded on the formal charge-sheet, which is dated 5th November 1976, though admittedly the alleged misconduct by. The appellants was committed prior to 4th October 1976, on which date, a letter was sent by the respondent-Company to the appellants asking them to submit their explanations in respect of the allegations which had been received against them. It may be pointed out that clause (4) of Standing Order 15 does not require issuance of a formal charge- sheet. All that it requires is that the alleged misconduct must be brought to the notice of the offending worker within one month of the commission of such misconduct or the date from which it is brought to the notice of the Management. In the instant case, the respondent-Company, by its letter, dated 4th October 1976, had immediately brought the alleged misconduct of the appellants to their notice and further asked them for their explanations. The fact that the formal charge-sheet was issued on 5th November 1976, makes no difference because the fact of misconduct had already been brought to the notice of the appellants.
9. As I find no substance in any of the contentions of the learned counsel or any merit in these appeals, I dismiss all the 3 appeals in limine.