' This appeal arises from the decision dated 9-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service. However, no order was passed with regard to back benefits.
2. The bus No,1454 conducted by the respondent was stopped for checking on 4-6-1979, but the respondent did not allow checking and instead criminally intimidated the checking party and threatened them with dire consequences and used obscene language. Form TT-40 was issued and, thereafter, he was charge-sheeted and an enquiry held against him which culminated in his dismissal.
3. The respondent urged in his statement that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce any defence, but however, this assertion was controverted by the Enquiry Officer when he appeared as RW-2 before the lower Court. The respondent in his statement stated that he had enmity with the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in cross-examination admitted that he had brought a complaint against the respondent in the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no objection was raised against the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry, therefore, now it is too late for the respondent to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the ground of enmity. It was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to refuse to make the enquiry when there were differences between him and the respondent and the matter had gone upto the Court. The other defect in the enquiry is that no opportunity of the producing defence evidence was afforded to the respondent. As the Enquiry Officer was prejudiced against the respondent and as no opportunity of production of defence was given, the learned lower Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in Mine.