1. ' The petitioner was working as a Tabletting Incharge with respondent No,
1. He was charge-sheeted on 8th March, 1982 (Annexure "C") with the allegation that, on 4th Marcb, 1982, at about 8-40 a. m., while Mr. Raza Ali, the Maintenance Engineer, was on round, the petitioner stopped him at the corridor and started quarrelling with him. He threatened him with dire consequences and used abusive language. Mr. Raza Ali had to take refuge in order to save himself from any assault. The petitioner made a reply on 9th March, 1982 (Annexure "D"), stating that the allegations were incorrect and mala fide. He also made a grievance that the names of the witnesses had not been mentioned. The petitioner was given a notice of enquiry on 10th March, 1982 and Mr. A. H. Haideri, Personnel Manager was appointed an Enquiry Officer. A notice of enquiry was given and a regular enquiry was held. The findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and the same have been placed on the record at page 69. By the findings, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge of misconduct. A second show-cause notice was also given to the petitioner (Annexure "H"), to which the petitioner made a reply, denying his involvement. He made allegations that the Enquiry Officer was not independent, and the enquiry was a mock show. A dismissal order followed on 8th April, 1982, whereafter a grievance notice under section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was given, and, obtaining no relief, the petitioner filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the IIIrd Labour Court at Karachi.
2. ' In this application, the petitioner made some grievances, but what is stated in paragraph 21 of the application needs to be mentioned specifically, because Mr. M. L. Shahani has based his submissions only on the ground, or, facts as are stated in the said paragraph. Paragraph 21 of the application reads as follows :- "(21) That the respondent refused to re-instate the applicant in reply to his grievance notice, but the applicant is not in possession of the reply by the respondents and have demanded the respondents to supply a duplicate copy of the same as well as the copies of statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer vide his application, dated 26th May, 1982 -(Annexure "A/26"). The respondents sent only the photostat copy of their reply to the petitioner attached herewith as (Annexure "A/27")."
3. ' The Labour Court allowed the petitioner to file affidavit in evidence and he was cross-examined.
4. 'The petitioner also produced five other witnesses, namely, Muhammad Haider, Miss Sayeeda Naz, Sher Khan, Tahir Hussain and Shamim Khan. These witnesses supported the petitioner, but without stating that the allegations against the petitioner were false. These witnesses also made some reference to the evidence in the enquiry. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. A. H. Haideri was examined before the Labour Court. The long and short is that the Labour Court dismissed the application made by the petitioner, so that he filed an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. This appeal also failed, so that the present petition has been filed.
5. ' The only point urged by Mr. M. L. Shahani is that a copy of the proceedings before the domestic Enquiry Officer had not been supplied to the petitioner, and had not been placed on the record of the Labour Court. Earlier, we have reproduced paragraph 21 of the application of the petitioner, and even the said paragraph might be read for the purpose of understanding the exact nature of the grievance of the petitioner. A counter-affidavit had been filed by the respondent No, 1, wherein it is stated that a fair enquiry had been conducted, and that a true copy of the enquiry proceedings was submitted before the Sind Labour Court, when the petitioner had filed the grievance petition.
6. These averments are contained in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit. Further, in paragraph 7 of the same counter-affidavit, the deponent has relied on and reproduced an extract from the order of the Labour Court, which reads as follows :- "The applicant entered into lies, alleging that he was not allowed to lead defence, that he was not supplied with enquiry report etc. There were clear lies as he and his witness admitted that he was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and proceedings and that he did lead defence."
7. On the other hand, the Labour Court, in paragraph 5 of its order, has stated that it had perused the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer. Which would clearly show that the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, or, at least the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer were before the Labour Court.
8. On facts, we are satisfied that the copy of the order of Enquiry Officer, as also the evidence led before him were placed before the Labour Court.
9. We have looked at this matter even from another angle on an assumption that the documents were not supplied. Mr. M. L. Shahani admitted before us that the petitioner made no application before the Labour Court for summoning that record. Mr. M. L. Shahani has also not set up a case that any rule, or, provision of law made it mandatory on the employer to place a copy of the evidence, or, proceedings before the domestic Tribunal on the record of the Labour Court. It is also admitted by Mr. M. L. Shahani that the petitioner made no application for summoning of this record, though he reverted to the submission that, in paragraph 21 of the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, a grievance was made by him on such basis. It is common knowledge that documents are often times referred to in the pleadings, but the rule, or, procedure requires that the party, seeking to obtain documents from the opposite party, has to give a notice to the opposite party, or, B obtain an order from the Court, requiring the opposite party to place the documents on record. This has not been done. We may also refer to an application made by the petitioner on 26th May, 1982 (Annexure "K-1") to the employer, and in this application also, the petitioner had stated that some documents had been supplied to him by the employer, which had been misplaced by his Advocate, who had gone away to United States, and he, therefore, asked the employer to supply him certified copies of the statement recorded by the prosecution, its witness as well as the deposition of defence witnesses. This he stated were required by him for the purpose of his case before the Labour Court. On a reading of this application, we are left in no doubt that these documents had been supplied to the petitioner earlier, but the same had, perhaps, been misplaced.
10. ' No other points has been raised before us. We see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.