' These 2 appeals are directed against separate but substantially similar decisions given by the learned VIth Labour Court, on 30th October, 1980, dismissing the grievance petitions filed by appellants against the termination of their services by the respondent establishment. As both the appeals arise out of the same incident and involve common questions of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2. The two appellants, who are admittedly the workmen of the respondent establishment, were charge-sheeted in respect of an incident which occurred on 21st February, 1978. In this incident, according to the charge-sheet, the two appellants are said to have assaulted and beaten Head Reeler, Mohammad Iqbal, near the canteen of the respondent establishment. A joint enquiry was held against the two appellants in which besides Head Reeler Mohammad Iqbal, two workmen of the respondent establishment, Najaf and Arif, who had witnessed the incident and are said to have rescued Mohammad Iqbal were examined. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were established against both the appellants and on the basis of his report, both the appellants were dismissed from service with effect from 21st October, 1979. The appellants challenged the orders of their dismissal through grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., but they were dismissed by the impugned decisions.
3. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellants has assailed the impugned decisions of the learned Labour Court on the grounds, (1) that the charges against the appellants are false and had not been established in the domestic enquiry ; and (2) that the appellants were not provided proper opportunity of defence in the domestic enquiry. In respect of his first contention, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi submitted that the only witnesses as examined by the Enquiry Officer, besides the complainant Mohammad Iqbal are Najaf and Arif who are interested witnesses being near relatives of complainant Mohammad Iqbal. The mere facts, however, that Najaf and Arif are near relatives of Mohammad Iqbal, by itself, is not a valid reason for disbelieving or doubting their testimony. No enmity has been established or even alleged to exist between these 2 witnesses and the appellants. Admittedly both these witnesses are not only employed in the Sam section as complainant Mohammad Iqbal, but were also working in the same shift. As such, their presence during the incident is natural and cannot be doubted. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Din v. State (1) that :-"It has been observed by this Court in a number of cases that the mere fact of relationship does not necessarily render a witness as account of occurrence subject to doubt, provided his presence is proved without doubt.
4. Complainant Mohammad Iqbal, in his evidence before the Enquiry Officer fully supported his complaint of assault and attack upon him by both the appellants. He is fully supported by the 2 witnesses Najaf and Arif. It may be stated here that a report of the incident was lodged by the complainant with-the police on the very night of the incident and the police had challaned the two appellants. No doubt the case ended in a compromise but that does not tend to cost {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1964 SC 177 {{FOOT NOTE}} a cloud on the version of assault and attack on complainant Mohammad Iqbal.
5. In regard to the second contention, namely, that the appellants were not afforded opportunity of defence in the domestic enquiry, it was contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the appellants wanted to examine the Chowkidar at the gate and the shift incharge, but the Enquiry Officer declined to summon them or examine them, and that further, the Enquiry Officer did not give an opportunity to cross examine the complainant in regard to the production by him of medical certificate from the Civil Hospital. Both these contentions are based upon an application made on behalf of the two appellants by their representative in the enquiry proceedings, Jehangir. This application made on 18th March, 1978. Earlier on 15th March, 1978, Jehangir had made a similar application for the examination of Chowkidar at the gate. From the letters, dated 16th March, 1978 and 19th March, 1978, addressed to Jehangir by the Enquiry Officer, it appears that though the Enquiry Officer was not willing to examine the Chowkidar or the shift incharge as prosecution witnesses or to allow cross-examination of the complainant in respect of the medical certificate, while he was still giving evidence, the Enquiry Officer was prepared to allow the two witnesses to summoned in defence and to allow the cross-examination subsequently. However, when on 28th March, 1978, the appellants were asked whether they wanted to examine any defence, the appellants did not ask for the summoning either of the Chowkidar at the gate or the shift incharge, but appellant, Altaf desired to examine in his defence only Ghaffar Shah while appellant Safdar desired to examine in his defence witnesses, Ghulam Muhammad, Manzoor Hussain and Muhammad Nazeer. All the 4 witnesses were duly examined by the enquiry officer, but their evidence was of little assistance to the appellants as they did not support their case.
6. I would also like to refer to the cross examination of the two appellants who have conceded that the enquiry was held in their presence, that they were allowed to be represented by a worker of their choice and that the witnesses cited by them in their defence were examined. No complaints have been made by them in the evidence before the learned Labour Court that the enquiry was not fairly held or that they were denied a fair and proper opportunity of defence. Both of them have further admitted that they had raised no objection either to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer or to the manner in which he conducted the proceedings. I have examined the enquiry proceedings and am satisfied that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of the view that the appellants were rightly dismissed after a proper domestic enquiry in which charges of misconduct were duly established against them. I would accordingly dismiss both the appeals of the two appellants.