The respondent, who was employed as a Battery man in the appel--lant establishment, was charge-sheeted, vide letter, dated 24th June, 1979. The charge-sheet alleged as many as 6 separate acts of misconduct against the respondent, first, that on 23rd June, 1979, he had come into the Divisional Office at about 2-30 p. m., and had indulged in disorderly behaviour against officials of the Division in the presence of Ali Muhammad Baloch, President of the Union and Mr. Suleman Solangi. General Secretary of the Union, second that prior to that he had issued threats to Mr. Ahmad Ali Shah Head Clerk, in the presence of Mr. Ali Anwar Shah Head Turner, third, that on 23rd June, 1979, during duty hours, he slipped out of the gate at about 3-30 p. m., without seeking permission of his superiors, fourth, that he subsequently pre--vented Ahmad Ali Shah near the cycle stand from going outside the factory, gave blows to him, abused him and pelted bricks on him in the presence of witnesses Khadim Hussain and Khalid Hussain, fifth, that after committing the above assault on Ahmad Ali Shah, he slipped away from duty without prior permission of his superior, and sixth, that from his previous record, it appears that previously also he had quarrelled with Jamil Akhtar Clerk for which he was awarded punish--ment of stoppage of one annual increment. It appears that an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the aforesaid charges against the respondent. On the basis of the report of that enquiry committee, the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 31st July, 1979. The respondent challenged the orders of his dismissal through a grievance petition filed before the learned VIIth Labour Court . This grievance petition was allowed and the dismissal of the respondent was set aside by the learned Labour Court on the ground that one of the members of the enquiry committee, Mr. Ali Muhammad Baloch was an eye-witness to the incident, and hence the enquiry committee could not be considered to be independent or impartial. The decision of the learned Labour Court was challenged in appeal by the appellant. This Tribunal, by its order, dated 4th February, 1981, upheld the decision of the learned Labour Court but at the same time gave an option to the appellant to hold a proper enquiry against the respondent and made the award of back benefits dependent upon the result of the fresh enquiry.
The appel--lant thereafter appointed Mr. Roshan Ali Mangi as the Enquiry Officer. In his report, dated 21st March, 1981, he held the respondent guilty of disorderly behaviour during working hours and also committing an act subversive of discipline. This finding was given by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of his view that the respondent had fought with Head Clerk Ahmad Ali Shah, abused him and beat him up in connection with an official matter. It appears that the Enquiry Officer has only dealt with one of the 6 allegations against the respondent and has not found him guilty of the other charges, presumably as there was no evidence to establish the same. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the appellant issued fresh orders of dismissal of the respondent, dated 12th April, 1981. The second order of dismissal was also challenged by the respon--dent before the learned VIlth Labour Court . The learned Labour Court has taken the view that the only evidence supporting Head Clerk Ahmad Ali Shah in his allegations against the respondent is of the 2 brothers, Khadim Hussain and Khalid Hussain who were subordinates of Ahmad Ali Shah and since they appear to be interested persons and there is no independent evidence against the respondent, the dismissal orders in respect of the respondent cannot be maintained. It has accordingly ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with award of full back benefits. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Aziz Dastagir, the learned counsel for the appellant, and . Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch, who appeared for the respondent. The sole point which was canvassed before me by Mr. Dastagir was whether there was tangible evidence led in the domestic enquiry to establish the misconduct of the respondent. At the outset, 1 would like to observe that I am rather surprised that though as many as 6 separate acts of misconduct were alleged against the respondent, evidence appears to have been led only in respect of the alleged assault by the respondent on Head Clerk Ahmad Ali Shah. The practical drop--ping by the appellant of the remaining 5 charges against the respondent seems to indicate a somewhat reckless attitude is making allegations against him.
Coming to the misconduct said to have been established against the respondent in the domestic enquiry, it may be stated that the alleged assault on Head Clerk Ahmad Ali Shah is said to have taken place at the cycle stand near the main gate of the workshop, at the close of the office hours of the workshop, when a number of office employees were going out in addition to the presence of the staff at the gate, According to the evidence of Ahmad Ali Shah given in the domestic enquiry, he was assaulted by the respondent, abused by him and pieces of brick were thrown on him.
Ahmad Ali Shah has named Khalid Hussain, Khadim Hussain, other clerks, the shift incharge and Chowkidars as being among the persons who had witnessed that incident and had rescued him.
The Enquiry Officer examined as many as 9 persons, namely (1) Ali Anwar Shah (Head Turner); (2)
Khadim Hussain, (Junior Clerk); (3) Khalid Hussain (Junior Clerk): (4) Naseemuddin (Time-Keeper);
(5) Qalandar Bux (Shift Jamadar); (6) Soomar Khan (Chowki--dar): (7) Ghulam Muhammad (Shift Jamadar); (8) Jalal Shah (Chowki--dar); and (9) Ahmad Saeed (Clerk); Out of these 9 persons as already stated, only the 2 brothers, Khalid Hussain and Khadim Hussain, Junior Clerks working under Ahmad Ali Shah, have supported the allegation. On one point, however, there appears to be serious discrepancy between their evidence. As already stated, according to Ahmad Ali Shah the respondent threw pieces of bricks on him. According to Khadim Hussain, the respondent hurled one brick at Ahmad Ali Shah, while according to Khalid Hussain, the respondent threw (apparently hit) bricks on Ahmad Ali Shah. The evidence of these 2 witnesses was not relied upon and rejected-by the learned Labour Court on the ground that not only they were brothers but further, being subordinates of Ahmad Ali Shah, were interested. The view taken by the learned Labour Court cannot be considered to be unsound particularly when the other witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry had not supported the allegations made by Ahmad Ali Shah. Even Qalandar Shah, the Shift Jamadar, merely stated in his examination-in-chief before the Enquiry Officer that he saw both the parties quarrelling with each other. He made no mention bf bricks being hurled at Ahmad Ali Shah. He further watered down his statement by admitting that he neither knows the respondent nor he was present on the date of the incident There is no reason why the other witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer should have tried to support the respondent, who was merely a Batteryman, against Ahmad Ali Shah, who was Head Clerk in the workshop, possibly some incident did take place, but it has not been established how and under what circumstances the incident took place nor do the ingredients of sub-clause (h) of clause 3 of Standing Order 15 appear to have been established.
3. For the reasons discussed by me, above, I find no adequate reasons for disturbing the findings of the learned Labour Court and accordingly dismiss the appeal.