This appeal arises from the decision dated 13-11-1977 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a Book Binder in the Government Printing Press, Lahore employed on 11-4- 1977. He is alleged to have been caught red-handed while stealing away a bundle of reel papers weighing about 10 seers-from the Press. He was caught at the gate after he was searched and the stolen papers were recovered from him. He was served with a show --cause notice (Exh. P. 1) on 20-5-1977. He filed reply Exh. P-2. Enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal.
3. The enquiry was not properly conducted. Original enquiry file has not been produced and certified copies are on the Labour Courts record, which showed that first of all the statement of the respondent was recorded. Thereafter, the statement of Ikhtiar Hussain Constable No. 4945 was recorded. After that again the statement of the respondent was recorded. In both the statements the respondent confessed his guilt. He was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine Ikhtiar Hussain, Constable. The statements of the respondent and that of the constable Ikhtiar Hussain are not signed by the Enquiry Officer. Although they appear to have been got signed from the respondent and the witness. Since the enquiry proceedings are .Not signed by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that in reality the statement of the respondent, in which he appears to have confessed his guilt was genuinely recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the respondent had confessed his guilt, therefore, not affording opportunity to him to cross- examine the constable and not giving him opportunity to produce defence did not vitiate the pro-- ceedings. The recording of the statement of the respondent before recording the evidence of the prosecution witness was improper. Since it was decided to hold an enquiry, the same should have been made according to the rules and since the respondent was- not afforded opportunity to cross-examine) the prosecution witness and was also not afforded opportunity to produce) defence, the order of dismissal passed upon such an enquiry stands vitiated. Since the enquiry was not made according to Standing Order 15 (4) of the W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance,1 1968, the learned lower court rightly re-instated the respondent 4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss it.