DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Sixth Labour Court at Hyderabad, given on 29th July, 1982, on the grievance petition of the appellant workman, challenging his removal from service. In the said decision, the learned Labour Court has taken the view that the enquiry proceedings suffered from an infirmity in that the Enquiry Officer, before examining the witnesses against the appellant, recorded the statement of the appellant and cross-examined him. The learned Labour Court set aside the order of removal from service of the appel--lant but at the same time has given an option to the Railway Administra--tion, the respondents herein, to hold a fresh enquiry against the appel--lant within three months and has made the claim of the appellant to back benefits dependent upon the result of the enquiry.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that in April, 1980, the appellant was posted as Station Master, Bubak Rai Railway Station. In that month an inspection of Bubak Rai Railway Station was held and certain irregularities allegedly committed by the appellant came to light. The appellant was charge-sheeted in respect of those irregularities and was reverted vide order dated 7th October, 1980. The appellant challenged the orders of the reversion through a grievance petition filed in the learned Sixth Labour Court at Hyderabad which set aside the said order on the ground that the enquiry conducted against the appellant was impro--per and contravened the principles of natural justice. The learned Labour Court , however, gave an option to the respondent to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant within one month and to complete the same within a period of two months of tae decision, dated 30th May, 1981
3. In consequence of the aforesaid decision of the learned Labour Court , a fresh enquiry was held against the appellant. The respondent appointed the Assistant Commercial Officer, Karachi, as an Enquiry Officer and he issued charge-sheet to the appellant which was served on him. However, as the appellant took objection to the appointment of this Officer he was replaced by an Assistant Transportation Officer. The latter Officer conducted enquiries on the charge-sheet against the appel--lant and found the appellant guilty of the said charges. On the basis of his report the appellant was removed from service vide order which appears to have been signed on 20th August, 1981. The appellant once again approached the learned Labour Court to challenge the afore--said order. The learned Labour Court , as pointed out above, set aside the orders .Of his removal from service but has given the respondents another opportunity of holding a proper enquiry against the appellant and has made the award of back benefits dependent upon the said enquiry.
4. It was contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the enquiry proceedings were not instituted within one month of the order of the learned Labour Court , dated 30th May, 1981, the period allowed in the said decision. This contention was also raised before the learned Labour Court which has repelled the same and I may say rightly so. The first requirement for holding a domestic enquiry into the misconduct alleged against the workman, if it is intend--ed to dismiss the workman, is to bring the alleged misconduct to the notice of the workman. In the instant case, the first charge-sheet served upon the appellant is dated 26th June, 1981, which was received by the appellant on 27th June, 1981, well within one month of the decision of the learned Labour Court , dated 30th May, 1981. It was, however, sought to be argued by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the domestic enquiry against the appellant was not held on the basis of this charge-sheet but the charge-sheet, dated 26th July, 1981 issued by the Assistant Transporta--tion Officer. A comparison of the two charge-sheets shows that both relate to the same acts of misconduct alleged against the appellant. As such the enquiry proceedings by the Assistant Transportation Officer were in respect of the acts of misconduct stated in the charge-sheet, dated 20th June, 1981 5.. It was next contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the learned Labour Court was not justified in giving a fresh opportunity to the respondent -to -hold an enquiry against the appellant; since the res--pondent have already held two enquiries against him. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi sought support for his contention from the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Amin Jan v. N. V. De Meyer Zelzate (1980 PLC 294) and Messrs Ulbright Pakistan Limited v. Mirza Raees Ahmed (1981 PLC 360).
The former case in fact goes against the contention of the learned counsel. In that case also as in the present case, it was found that the Enquiry Officer at the start of the enquiry had put certain questions to the work--man and cross-examined him. In the circumstances it was held that the.
Enquiry Officer appeared to be biased against the workman and, accord--ingly, the workman was ordered to be re-instated in service but at the same time the management was given option to hold a fresh enquiry against the workman. In the case of Mirza Raees Ahmed Baig it was held that the Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of the prosecutor and before prosecution evidence was recorded the evidence of the accused and then closed the enquiry proceedings without giving, an opportunity to the accused for his defence, in the circumstances it was held that the enquiry proceedings against the workman stood vitiated. Even in this case, fresh opportunity was given to the management to hold a proper enquiry against the workman. No doubt it would not .Be appro-- priate to permit repeated enquiries on the same allegations against a workman but if only a comparatively minor irregularity which does not cause material prejudice to the workman, has been committed by the, Enquiry Officer or the workman himself has contributed to the commission of the irregularities or the allegations against the workman are of a very serious nature or affect the public interest, more than one enquiry could reasonably be permitted. It may be pointed out that in the instant case the appellant himself in his evidence before the learned Labour Court has admitted that he was given opportunity to cross-examine every witness examined in the enquiry and he expressed his satisfaction with the procedure of the enquiry. In the circumstances, permission to hold a fresh enquiry appears to be quite appropriate and in accordance with the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court (1980 PLC 307).
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.