' This appeal challenges the decision, dated 3rd January, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby all the respondents 37 in numbers were directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondents were charge-sheeted for observing strike for about three hours, on 27th June, 1980. The respondents appeared in the enquiry. According to the appellant, each one of the respondents, who appeared before the enquiry officer, received copy of report made against him and went away. Enquiry was completed ex parte. According to the respondents, the enquiry officer asked them to leave the union and some gundas were sitting with the enquiry officer who threatened them and that the enquiry officer told them that fresh notice would go to them for another date.
3. The respondents have been divided into nine sets because all of them did not appear before the lower Court as witness and in each set only one worker came in the witness-box. Set No, 1 consists of only one respondent Mashkoor Hussain, who appeared as P. W.
1. Set No, 2 consists of Amanat Ali, who appeared as his own witness, Jameel-ur-Rehman and Abdul Aziz. Set No, 3 consists of Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Ilyas, Khadim Hussain, Zulfiqar Ali and Bashir Ahmad. In this set only Muhammad Sharif appeared as P. W. Before the lower Court. Set No, 4 consists of Atta-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Ali and Subedar Khan. Only Atta-ur-Rehman gave evidence, before the learned lower Court. Set No, 5 consists of Nazar Hussain. Muhammad Ramzan, Anwar, Imtiaz, Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Mukhtar, Muhammad Sardar, Muhammad Idrees, Barkat Ali, Muhammad Hanif and Taj Din. In this set only Nazar Hussain appeared before the learned lower Court. In this case request for adjournment was made to the enquiry officer which was granted adjourning the enquiry to 19th July, 1980. According to the enquiry officer, the respondents of this set were awaited till 3-30 but nobody turned up, so ex parte enquiry was held. Set No, 6 consists of Abdur Rehman, Faiz Ahmad, Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Ghani, Muhammad Akbar, Hashmat Ali, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Nawaz. Only Abdur Rehman was examined. Set No, 7 consists of two persons namely Muhammad Arif and Ashfaq Ahmad, out of whom only Muhammad Arif came in the witness-box. Set No, 8 consists of three persons namely Muhammad Munir, Abdul Rashid and Musa Khan. Only Muhammad Munir appeared before the learned lower Court. The last Set No, 9 consists of only one man namely Taj Nawab, who appeared as his own witness. Applications were given to the management against the enquiry officers. Exhs. P. 4 and P. 5 pertain to Set No,
1. Exhs. P. 9 and P. 8 were given by Amanat Ali. His reply to the second show-cause notice is Exh. P.
3. Exhs. P. 13 and P. 12 were sent by Jameel-ur-Rehman. Second show-cause notice is Exh. P.
11. Exhs. P. 17 and P. 16 were sent by Abdul Aziz. Reply to second show-cause notice is Exh. P.
15.
' Set No, 3.-On page 35 can be found application, dated 17th July, 1980 from Muhammad Sharif (not exhibited) addressed to the Management complaining that on the date of enquiry (16th July, 1980) application was given to the enquiry officer for summoning certain papers but he refused to receive the application, nor told the next date. On page 39 is another application by Muhammad Sharif, dated 27th July, 1980 enquiring date of enquiry. Exhs. P. 17 and P. 16 are the applications are of Khadim Hussain. Exh. P. 20 dated 17th July, 1980 and Exh. P. 19, dated 24th July, 1980 were given by Muhammad Ilyas. Exh. 24 dated 17th July, 1980 and Exh. P-23 dated 24th July, 1980 are the applications of Muhammad Yasin. Likewise Exhs. P. 27 and P. 26 are the applications of Zulfiqar Ali.
Exhs. P. 30 and P. 2 are by Bashir Ahmad. Replies to the second show-cause notices are also on the file.
Set No, 4.-Similar applications, dated 17th July, 1980 are of Muhammad Ali, Subedar Khan and Atta- ur-Rehman. They, however, were not followed by second application. They were not got exhibited in evidence. Reply to second show-cause notice of the above-mentioned three persons are Exhs. P. 8, P. 9 and P.
10.
Set No, 5.-In this set the applications sent by Jan Muhammad are Exhs. .P. 20 and P.
19. Exh. P. 21 is another application in which he complained that the Enquiry Officer Mr. Randhawa had asked him to leave the union. It is dated 19th July 1980. Exhs. P. 24 and P. 23 are the applications of Muhammad Mukhtar of this set. Exh. P. 25 is another application dated 19th July, 1980 in which he like Jan Muhammad complained that the enquiry officer had asked him to leave the union, Exhs. P.
28 and P. 27 are the applications of Muhammad Hanif and Exh. P. 29 is the application, dated 19th July, 1980. Exhs. P. 31, P. 32 and P. 33 are the applications of Barkat Ali. Exhs. P. 35, P. 36 and P. 37 are similar applications of Muhammad Idrees. Exhs. P. 40 and P. 39 are the applications of Muhammad Sarwar. Exh. P. 43, P. 42 and P. 44 were given by Taj Din. Exhs. P. 47, P. 46 and P. 48 were given by Anwar Imtiaz. Exhs. P. 51, P. 50 and P. 52 are the applications of Muhammad Ramzan. Exhs. P. 55, P.
54 and P. 55/1 are the copies of the application s sent by Nazar Hussain. In this set in the applications alleged to have been sent on 19th July, 1980 it was complained that the enquiry officers had asked the workers to leave the union, but these applications are not admitted by the appellant.
Set No, 6.-The workers arrayed in this set too sent applications to the management for changing the enquiry officers. The office copies of the application sent by Abdur Rehman are Exhs. P. 18 and P.
17, that of Muhammad Nawaz are Exhs. P. 21 and P. 20, that of Faiz Ahmad are Exhs. P. 24 and P. 23, that of Muhammad Ashraf are Exhs. P. 27 and P. 26, that of Abdul Ghani are Exhs. P. 30 and P. 29, that of Muhammad Akram Exhs. P. 33 and P. 32, that of Shaukat All Exhs. P. 36 and P. 35 and that of Muhammad Saleem Exhs. P. 39 and P.
38. Replies to the second show-cause notices are on the file and admitted by the appellant.
Set No, 7.-Office copies of the applications sent by the workers of this set for changing the enquiry officers are Exhs. P. 6 and P. 5 of Muhammad Arif, Exhs. P. 10 and P. 9 of lshfaq Ahmad. They had sent replies to the second show-cause notices which are admitted by the appellant. In the replies they urged that the enquiry officers had asked them to leave the union.
Set No, 8.-The office copies of the applications. Given by the workers of this set against the enquiry officers are Exhs. P. 9 and P. 8 in the case of Muhammad Munir,.Exhs. P. 13 and P. 12 in the case of Musa Khan Exhs. P. 17 and P. 18 and in the case of Abdur Rashid. They are admitted by the management. Replies to the second show-cause notice in which the above-mentioned workers of this set had alleged that the enquiry officers had asked them to leave the union, are also admitted although the allegations made against the enquiry officers is denied.
Set No, 9.-The solitary worker of this set namely Taj Nawab produced office copy Exh. P. 1 of application, dated 15th July, 1980 sent to the management against the enquiry officer. It is alleged in Exh. P. 1 that the enquiry officer had asked him to sign certain papers which he refused on the plea that he was an illiterate and without getting them read by some responsible man would not sign. He also complained that he asked the enquiry officer to summon certain papers but he refused.
4. The sole ground on which the learned lower Court accepted the grievance petitions and directed the reinstatement of the respondents in service is that the enquiry officer was engaged with a pre- condition that the workers were to be held guilty. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this finding is based upon no evidence. These remarks, no doubt, are very hard but this fact cannot be denied that the respondents had no confidence in the enquiry officers and had made timely request to the management for changing them. The management should not have insisted upon the retention of the same enquiry officers. Every worker, according to the enquiry officer, went away after receiving the copy of the report made against him and he kept quiet. After some workers had done so, he should have enquired from the rest of the workers the cause of leaving the enquiry. Apart from it, this is quite clear that the respondents wanted to consult someone by showing the copy of the report. Admittedly, no copy of the report was supplied with the charge- sheet and it was not necessary, but the copy of the report was not demanded for no purpose. In these circumstances, the enquiry officers, should have adjourned the enquiry instead of proceeding ex parte. In one case in which request for adjournment was made, he did adjourn the enquiry. If in reality he did not know why the workers had left after getting the copy, he must have come to know the reason when one of them namely Nazar Hussain of Set No, 5 had made request for adjournment. So, when the workers did not turn up, he should have adjourned the enquiry and sent notices to them. The workers are laymen, so may not be knowing that making of request for adjournment was necessary. If they had intended not to take part in the enquiry, they would not have come. This was according to the position taken by the enquiry officers. The respondents' case is different. They had in their applications addressed to the management requested for changing the enquiry officers. The reason given was that the enquiry officers had refused to summon certain papers required by them for the enquiry. The particulars of the documents, no doubt are not given in the said applications but verbally they may have given the details. Another application was followed by the previous one in which date of enquiry was enquired. This shows that the workers wanted to participate in the enquiry. If at all they had left the enquiry on the first date without cogent reason, yet it was just and proper to fix another date on the request made by them and the management was not justified in insisting to act on the ex parte enquiry. However, the position taken by some of the workers in the applications, dated 19th July, 1980 and in reply to second how- cause notice appears to be afterthought. They said therein that the enquiry officers had asked them to leave the union. If it had happened on the date of enquiry, the said workers must have mentioned this fact in their applications sent to the management on the following date of the enquiry.
5. During arguments learned counsel for the respondents had reluctantly remarked that the enquiry officers were the juniors of some standing counsel and legal advisors of the management.
There is no evidence to this effect on the record. And even if it was so in the absence of evidence it cannot be assumed that the standing counsel had advised his juniors to return the verdict of guilty in all circumstances, but at the same time it was not proper for the management to appoint any junior of its standing counsel as enquiry officer. In the circumstances discussed above, it is necessary that the enquiry should be held again.
6. As a result of what has been said above, I partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court by allowing the appellant to hold enquiry again. The question of back benefits will depend upon the result of the fresh enquiry. If the appellant elects to hold enquiry again, new enquiry officers shall be appointed. If any of the respondents has finally settled the matter with the appellant, he shall not be compelled to re-open the matter and to join the enquiry.