' This petition under section 25-A I. R.
0. Has been filed by the applicant praying therein that he be reinstated in the service of the respondent with continuity in service and wages for the period of forged and unlawful unemployment.
' The brief facts of this case as stated by the applicant in his above petition are that he was employed in the respondent's Mill as a Production Clerk and had about 24 years of service to his credit and also actively participated in the union activities and held different offices in the Karachi Pipe Mill Employees Union. On account of his Union activities the management of the respondents had become hostile towards the applicant and since his election as General Secretary of the C. B.
A. Union he was being harassed and false and fabricated charge-sheets were issued to him and several criminal cases were filed against him in the N. I. R. C. In order to pressurise and intimidate him. On 18th June, 1981 the applicant was served with a charge-sheet, dated 17th June, 1981 wherein false and fabricated allegations were mentioned against the applicant to which the applicant submitted satisfactory reply, dated 26th January, 1981 but the management with pre-determined mind proceeded to hold enquiry against him and appointed Mr. M. B. Bhatti, Labour and Welfare Officer as Enquiry Officer who could not be said to be an independent and impartial person as he was subordinate to all the Executive Officers of the respondents. He further submitted that the enquiry commenced on 6th July, 1981 and concluded on 17th October, 1981 but thereafter the applicant, was not informed of the result and the respondent kept silent for a long time. On 26th July, 1983 the applicant had fallen sick and was under the treatment of the respondent's Medical Officer and while in the Dispensary he learnt that the respondents were planning to remove him from service and he filed an application against the respondents in the N. I. R. C. On 30th June, 1983 and from the comments filed by the respondents before the N.I.R.C. The applicant came to know of his dismissal from service vide letter, dated 28th June, 1983 sent at his home address but which was returned undelivered as the address was wrong. He further submitted that his dismissal from service was based on perverse finding of the Enquiry Officer, void and biased and was unlawful, unwarranted, mala fide and as a measure of victimisation for his trade Union activities. He further submitted that he sent a grievance notice, dated 25th July, 1983 to the respondents which was replied to buy them unsatisfactorily, by their letter, dated 10th October, 1983. Hence the above petition.
' The respondents in their reply statement admitted the employment of the applicant in their Mill as well as his participation in trade Union activities and holding of various offices in the C.B.A. Union.
They denied to be averse to the trade union activities of the workers or of being hostile to the applicant due to his trade Union activities and submitted that the applicant on the contrary took undue advantage of his offices and indul-ged in violence, illegal acts and misconduct. They also gave the details of the cases filed by them against the respondents in the N.I.R.C. For various acts of misconduct, unfair labour practices and other illegalities committed by the applicant. They further submitted that he contents of the charge-sheet, dated 17th June, 1981 were self-explanatory and denied them to be concocted and false. They further submitted that the reply of the applicant to the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory and therefore domestic enquiry was ordered against him which was conducted by Mr. M. B. Bhatti and the applicant participated fully in the enquiry and was afforded full opportunity to defend himself as is evident from the facts that he produced nine witnesses in his defence and signed each and every page of the enquiry proceedings. They further submitted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15th December, 1981 and the applicant in order to avoid disciplinary action on the basis of the enquiry report created one labour crises after another, viz., he raised demand of bonus for the year 1980-81, on 22nd Match, 1982 the applicant and other workers committed acts of unfair labour practice and a case was filed against him in the N.I.R.C., then -applicant filed his application in the N.I.R.C. On 12th April, 1982 and the respondents were restrained from terminating the service of the applicant till the disposal of his above application which was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant on 24th October, 1982, and thereafter, the Managing Director of the respondents proceeded on three months leave w. e. f.
March, 1983 and returned in June.
1983. They further submitted that the dismissal letter, dated 28th June, 1983 was sent by registered post A/D and the same was refused by the applicant as per remarks of the postal authority. They admitted the receipt of grievance notice, dated 26th July; 1983 and submitted that it was satisfactorily replied by them and further that a copy of the dismissal letter was also received by the applicant through the N. I. R. C. They submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the prayers asked for by him and prayed that the petition under section 25-A,
1. R.
0. Be dismissed.
' The applicant examined himself in support of his case and filed his affidavit-in-evidence. He was duly cross-examined by the learned Advocate, for the respondents and during the course of his cross-examinations produced documents Exh. 2-A to Exh. 3-E. On behalf of the respondents A. G.
Hakeem, Manager Personnel and Industrial Relations filed his affidavit-in-evidence wherein he reproduced the contents of the reply statement. He was duly cross-examined by the learned representative for the applicant.
' I have heard t t= arguments of the learned representative for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the respondents and I have also perused the evidence on record. The first ground on which the order of dismissal has been attacked is that the applicant has been victimised on account of his Trade Union activities whereby he has been seeking to provide benefits and strengthen the cause of the workers and to force the management to abide by the labour laws and to provide better conditions of service which fact was not liked by the management and at the opportune moment dismissed him from service on illegal and frivolous charges. The ground of victimisation is a very serious charge and if proved against the management renders them liable to severe punishment and in order to uphold this ground strong and unequivocal evidence is required to be adduced by the person who levels such a charge. In the present case except for the word of mouth of the applicant there is no other evidence whether oral and documentary to corrobate the allegations of the victimisation. The applicant in his petition under section 25-A,
1. R.
0. As well as in his affidavit-in-evidence submitted that be had filed several cases against the management on behalf of the workers and this had caused prejudice in the minds of the management, but on the contrary from perusal of the pleadings and evidence it is to be found that it was the management who had filed a number of cases against the applicant for commission of illegal acts, misconduct, unfair labour practice and disobedience of superiors. It is also pertinent to note that it was not for the first time in 1981-82 that the applicant held any office in the C. B. A. Union in the respondent establishment but as a matter of fact he had been holding offices in the C. B. A.
Union previously also and had been working for the cause of the workers but the respondents despite the fact that various charge-sheets were issued against him never took harsh view and let him off by issuing warnings. In the circumstances I hold that this contention has no force, and is overruled.
' The next ground which has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant was charge-sheeted on false and frivolous grounds which were concocted by the respondents and further there were no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charges and as a matter of fact the Enquiry Officer has absolved him of one of the charges. In this connection it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry and his report which are on record as Exhs. 3-D and 3-E respectively. From perusal of the enquiry proceedings 1 find that the Enquiry Officer had examined eight witnesses on behalf of the respondents, namely Major. Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Taufeeq Hasan Khan, Security Officer, A. G. Hakeem, Personal Manager, Muhammad Bashir, Security Officer, Dilbar Khan and Muhammad Qasim, and 1. U. Patel on both the charges and I am of the view that he has been very lenient in absolving the applicant of the first charge in view of the evidence adduced by of the respondents.
The Enquiry Officer did not commit any illegality or irregularity in holding the applicant guilty of the second charge in view of the evidence on record. Since the respondents have been able to adduce reliable and satisfactory evidence during the domestic enquiry which established one of the charges levelled against the applicant while he was absolved of the other due to benefit of doubt, the allegations that the charges were false and fabricated carries no weight. The contention that the respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to prove the charges is also repelled by the production of the above evidence. From perusal of the enquiry report I and that the Enquiry Officer had taken into consideration not only the evidence adduced by the respondents but also that of defence witness and has come to his conclusion after weighing both the evidence.
The next ground raised on behalf of the applicant is that the enquiry conducted by Mr. M. B. Bhatti was not impartial and free from influence inasmuch as Major Iqbal Ahmed, Manager Services used to remain present during the enquiry proceedings and the prosecution witnesses were forced to depose falsely against the applicant on account of his presence. This contention has been raised on behalf of the applicant for the first time during the course of the arguments and from perusal of the grievance notice, petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0. And the affidavit-in-evidence it is to be found that no such allegations has been made by the applicant. The contention, therefore, does not require any consideration.
The next ground on which the domestic enquiry has been challenged is that the Enquiry Officer being a Junior Officer had acted partially and also was biased towards the applicant. The mere fact that the Enquiry Officer was subordinate to the officers who had initiated the proceedings of misconduct against the applicant or who had appointed him as the Enquiry Officer is not sufficient to hold that he was acting under their influence and was not impartial. As regards the contention that he was biased towards the applicant, there is no evidence on record to lend support to it.
' Yet another ground on which the order of dismissal has been challenged is the delay in passing the order of dismissal. It has been contended that the enquiry commenced on 6th June, 1981 and concluded on 7th October, 1981 and thereafter the applicant heard nothing from the respondents till his order of dismissal, dated 28th July, 1983 which came to his knowledge on 16th July, 1983. From perusal of the evidence on record I find that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 15th December, 1981. There is also the endorsement of the Deputy General Manager, dated 17th February, 1982 wherein he has recommended dismissal of the applicant from service and the Managing Director also agreed with the recommendation of the Deputy General Manager but the order of dismissal could not be issued because the applicant indulged in raising Industrial Disputes and in uncalled for litigation with a view to delay the passing of order of punishment against him.
From perusal of the cross-examination of the applicant it is established that a case was filed against him and other workers for having physically beaten Deputy General Manager on 22nd March, 1982 that the applicant submitted a charter of demands on 1st June, 1982 which was finally settled after a strike notice on 22nd March, 1983 and that he had moved an application in the N. I. R.
C. And had obtained a prohibitory order against his dismissal which was finally withdrawn by him on 24th October, 1982. He also admitted that after the settlement in respect of charter of demands on 22nd March, 1983 the Managing Director went on three months leave. In the circumstances the order of dismissal, dated 28th June, 1983 cannot be said to be unduly belated or that the respondents had showed the enquiry proceedings against the applicant and had decided not to take any action. This contention also has no force.
' From the above I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the domestic enquiry was conducted against the applicant by an impartial an unbiased person in accordance with the provisions of law and principle of natural justice and that he was afforded full and fair opportunity defend himself which he availed in full. The order of dismissal of the applicant based on the aforesaid enquiry cannot be said to be improper irregular, illegal, mato fide or on account of victimization and it does not require to be interfered with. Accordingly, I dismiss the petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0.