The decision dated 13-3-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for their reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegations against the appellants were that they attacked and disgraced Mr. Fakhar-ud- Din, Deputy Manager. The learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any defect in the case except that the statements of the witnesses examined in the inquiry are discrepant with regard to the period that elapsed between the occurrence and the inquiry. The incident took place on 31-3-1979. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 10-6-1979. The witnesses said that the incident took place about 39/40 days before. According to this, the date of the occurrence comes to 30-4-1979. The difference is of one month. Ordinarily such a discrepancy is not ignorable but in view of the fact that the witnesses are not well-educated and are labourers, this defect was not serious. The witnesses are the employees of the factory and work there so they cannot be said to be merely chance witnesses. No doubt they were not working in the polishing shop where the incident took place but they duly explained the cause of their presence. The polishing shop had been a day earlier shifted to another place in the factory and all the workers were working at the new place so no worker of polishing shop could be cited as witness. The fact that the shop had been shifted is an admitted fact. In answer to the charge-sheets, this fact was stated by the appellants. The very cause of the incident was the shifting of shop. The appellants insisted to work at the same place. It was the prerogative of the employer to shift the polishing shop for good or bad reasons and the workers could not have any say in the matter. The appellants, therefore, were not justified to object to the shifting and wrongly insisted to continue to work at the old place. The appellants did not their own, accord properly take part in the inquiry.
They were asked to cross-examine the witnesses but they refused and also refused to sign the proceedings. Their plea is not believable that they were turned out of the room and were not allowed to participate in the inquiry. When notices of inquiry had been issued and they had appeared and had to some extent cross-examined the first witness, why the Inquiry Officer should have expelled them. Since they of their own accord did not continue to take part in the inquiry, the inquiry was rightly concluded in their absence. The impugned decision, therefore, is correct and I do no find, any ground to interfere with it.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
A. B.
Appeal dismissed.