' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 6th July, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had misbehaved with the supervisor and threatened to see him outside the gate of the factory. Statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 examined in the enquiry are consistent but P. W. 2 has stated differently. He said that after demanding card the appellant went to the winding Khata in anger and the supervisor went there and asked him to go to his machine, whereupon, the appellant misbehaved. The appellant in his statement admitted the incident but said that the supervisor had rather said to him "3; {{URDU TEXT}}. He also stated that the management had threatened his witnesses not to give evidence, whereupon they refused to come. Discrepancy regarding place of incident is always material and cannot be taken lightly.
According to P. W. 1 and P. W. 3, the incident took place at the seat of the supervisor but according to P. W. 2, the supervisor went to the winding Khata and there he asked the appellant to go to and work at his machine. It shows that the facts were not correctly narrated by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution version is even otherwise not probable. No employee would abuse his supervisor on his reply that his card had been taken away by someone else. The appellant may have said why his card had been given to Rafiq and this may have actuated the supervisor to say " {{URDU TEXT}}" The appellant appears to have correctly stated that not he but the supervisor had said to him " {{URDU TEXT}}", A supervisor would not tolerate that his subordinate should insist that he would take his card from him and not from Rafiq. The version given by the appellant is more plausible and believable. When one version is given by the prosecution and the other by the worker, and on plausible the one given by the worker is to be accepted. But in the present case, only the version given by the appellant is plausible and believable. So I believe the statement of the appellant. The Labour Courts can go into the facts of the case as is evident from section 25-A (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Court of first appeal is a Cowl of fact, so even to appeals, section 25-A (5) applies.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. The appellant is not entitled to back benefits as he did not say that he was not gainfully employed during his dismissal.