DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Labour Court, given on 1st February, 1981 dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his dismissal from service.
2. The appellant was employed as a Jobber in the respondent mills. His case is that in March, 1978 be was gate-stopped and his services were orally terminated by the respondent mills. He challenged the termination of his services before the learned IVth Labour Court which directed his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The management preferred an appeal against the said decision but it was unsuccessful.
' The appellant, according to him, was taken back on duty with effect from 15th December, 1980. He was, however, arrested on the night intervening between 19th March, 1980 and 20th March, 1980 in connection with a criminal offence and remained in custody till 29th March, 1980. According to him on his release from jail, he reported for duty but was gate-stopped. It is the case of the appellant that he repeatedly visited the mills but was not allowed entry. Ultimately he was charge-sheeted and a domestic enquiry was held against him in which, according to the appellant, neither his statement nor statements of witnesses were properly recorded. Ultimately he received dismissal orders, dated 30th April, 1980. The appellant challenged the fresh orders of his dismissal before the learned Labour Court which has passed the impugned decision against which the appellant has come up in appeal.
3. As Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant remained absent, I have heard the appellant, who appeared in person. I have also heard Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan, the learned representative of the respondent company.
4. The appeal was admitted mainly on the basis of the submission of Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim that the Enquiry Officer was not examined and the enquiry proceedings have not been properly proved. It is, however, pointed out by Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan that the Enquiry Officer was examined and cross-examined before the learned Labour Court and the enquiry proceedings have been properly brought on record not only through the Enquiry Officer, but through the appellant himself who has signed each page of the enquiry proceeding. The evidence of the Enquiry Officer, Ch. Tariq, Administrative Officer in the respondent company was recorded on 14th December, 1980 and he was cross-examined in detail by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned representative for the appellant before the learned Labour Court. The Enquiry Officer unambiguously asserted that he had recorded the statement of the appellant correctly and that he had not only allowed the appellant an opportunity of cross-examining each witness but had also given him an opportunity of further examination. The Enquiry Officer denied that he had acted partially, that he did not allow the appellant an opportunity of defence or that the appellant expressed any want of confidence in him.
5. As regards the other submission made by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim at the time of the admission of the appeal that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly proved, it may be mentioned that the enquiry proceedings were filed alongwith the reply statement which was made a part of the affidavit of Shaikh Ghulam Hussain, the Manager of the respondent company filed before the learned Labour Court. Each page of the enquiry proceedings bears the signatures of the appellant. The appellant in his evidence before the learned Labour Court admitted his signature on the statement of each witness recorded by the learned Labour Court. In view of the above circumstances I would concern with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the enquiry - proceedings were properly and fairly conducted and that the Enquire Officer was not motivated by bias or prejudice against the appellant.
6. Before the dismissal orders were issued against the appellant he was served with the second show-cause notice dated 23rd April, 1980. This notice was sent to the appellant by registered post at his correct address. The appellant has admitted receipt of this second show-cause notice alongwith a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was appended.
7. It only remains to be considered what the charges against the appellant were and whether there was evidence in the domestic enquiry to establish the said charges. The charge-sheet, dated 20th March, 1980 is to the effect that the appellant on 19th March, 1980 had abused and assaulted the Production Incharge, Mr. Feroze Khan, as the latter had terminated the services of Naseem, a nephew of the appellant. In the domestic enquiry three witnesses were examined in support of the aforesaid charge of riotous and disorderly behaviour. They are Feroze Khan, Nawazish, son of Zamarud Khan (double sider ring) and Raza Muhammad, son of Taj Muhammad (jobber) Mr. Feroze Khan, in his statement before the Enquiry Officer, stated that on 19th May, 1980 the appellant had come to him and inquired from him why the services of his nephew, Niseem, had been terminated and on his informing the appellant that Naseem's services were terminated as his work was not satisfactory and he was a probationer, the appellant lost temper, used filthy language, caught hold of his shirt and slapped him. He further stated that the appellant sought to incite the other workers to stop work and burn the machines but when they refused to do so he called them Feroze Khan was supported in full by Nawazish and Raza Muhammad. There was, thus, ample evidence before the Enquiry Officer to establish the charge of gross disorderly and riotous behaviour by the appellant, falling under clause (3) of Standing Order 15.
8. On the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, that the Enquiry Officer, had not been examined I had summoned the Enquiry Officer, but I have not found it necessary to examine him as I find that he had not only been examined but cross-examined before the learned Labour Court as already explained.