' The three appeals captioned above arise from the same decisions, dated 25th June, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur. As the facts and law points involved in all the three appeals are the same, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The three appellants were dismissed on the allegations that they had beaten the Assistant Foreman (Winding). Since the evidence of some of the defence witnesses was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the learned lower Court allowed re-enquiry and for the purposes of enquiry directed the re-instatement of the appellants.
3. All the appellants in reply to the enquiry notice requested for the appointment of some other Enquiry Officer on the ground that Mr. Yaseen, Enquiry Officer, had previously compelled them to join the pocket union and to leave their own union. The plea was taken throughout in answer to the second show-cause notice and thereafter. In these circumstances Mr. Yaseen, Enquiry Officer should have been brought in the witness-box before the learned lower Court to negate the aspersions laid by the appellants but it was not done. The evidence of the appellants in this respect, thereafter, stands rebutted. Since the Enquiry Officer was prejudiced against the appellants, no reliance could be placed safely on his proceedings and report. The learned lower Court should have permitted de novo enquiry directing that some other independent Enquiry Officer should be appointed by the employer.
4. As a result, I partly accept all the three appeals and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, directing that some other independent Enquiry Officer be appointed, who shall hold fresh enquiry from the very beginning. The question of back benefits would depend upon the result of fresh enquiry.