The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 3rd May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4 Faisalabad, directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. Enquiry was not got properly made by the Management. Relevant evidence was not produced.
Mr. Rehmat All made preliminary enquiry in the absence of the respondent and instead of examining the cultivatorsd on whose evidence Mr. Rehmat Ali opined that the respondent had committed misconduct, during the enquiry, only Mr. Rehmat Ali was cited as witness. Since the cultivators whose statements were used against the respondent were not examined in the enquiry, the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine them, to elicit truth from them. Muhammad Sarwar was examined before the Enquiry Officer. He said only this much that he distributed three copies and the remaining five were distributed by the respondent. He did not say that those pass books were not distributed. Only the concerned cultivators could say if the pass books were or were not delivered to them. Since they were not examined, the allegation that the pass books were not distributed, remained .Unproved. Akbar Ali said that in the so disputed squares, there was no sugar-cane and that for the last 5/6 years the land was lying barren. He did not give the numbers of those squares, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the land mentioned in the pass book was barren. Even if the land was lying barren, this is not the case that the sugar-cane was not supplied to the Mills. The Mills, therefore, did not incur any loss. The respondent said in his statement that Rehmat Ali was his boss and on his asking he made the entries in the pass books of the land. There is no evidence that the permits were utilized by the respondent. This fact was not admitted by the respondent. So far as entry of wrong area in the pass books is concerned, there is no evidence that the respondent knew the correct area and intentionally entered wrong area. So this did not amount to misconduct. The real thing was the utilization of permits issued on the basis of pass books. Since the landlords and cultivators in whose names the pass books and permits were issued, were not examined and there is no evidence that the permits were misused by the respondent, no charge stood established against him.
3. As a result, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.