The decision dated 28-11-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is reported to be of no legal effect.
2. The facts are that while the petitioner was driving bus No.3461 on 16-11-1979 the engine of the said bus seized. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held which resulted in imposing damages of Rs.8,699 upon the petitioner. The allegation was that the petitioner did not check the oil gauge. The level of the oil went down resulting in damage to the engine of the bus. Two witnesses Shafiq Ahmad and Ahmad Yar were examined in the inquiry. Shafiq Ahmed supported the allegation but Ahmad Yar, who had inspected the bus after failure of the engine, said that oil was proper, but when oil pump was opened, the shaft of the said pump was found broken, resulting in the failure of circulation of oil. Since Shafiq Ahmad did not say that he had opened the oil pump, the evidence of Ahmad Yar filter stands unrebutted. Ahmad Yar opened the oil pump, so what he said was correct. No fair inquiry was made. The Inquiry Officer did impartially. The statement of Ahmad Yar was recorded on 10-12-1981 in the presence of the appellant. On 27-7-1982 he was allowed by the Inquiry Officer to be cross-examined by the representative of the management in the absence of the appellant. Firstly, since the statement of Ahmad Yar had been completely recorded on 10-12-1981, there was no occasion to allow the prosecution to cross-examine him after about 7 months. Secondly, if at all any necessity was felt by the inquiry officer to allow cross- examination, in the absence of the appellant this could not be legally done. The signatures of the appellant. Do not appear below the cross-examination done on 27-7-1982. The Inquiry Officer has lost confidence by doing such acts and no reliance could be placed on the inquiry held by him.
Since Ahmad Yar was cross-examined on 27-7-1982 in the absence of the appellant and as the Inquiry Officer illegally allowed the prosecution to cross-examine this witness, this is doubtful if the record of cross-examination done on 27-7-1982 was correctly and faithfully prepared. Needless, to say that proceedings made in the absence of the accused have no legal value. So, the cross- examination of Ahmad Yar by the report done on 27-7-1982 could not be used against the appellant. By the evidence of Ahmad Yar recorded on 10-12-1981 it stands proved that the engine of the bus seized due to the breaking of the shaft of the oil pump for which the appellant was least responsible. The learned lower Court did not go deep into the facts of the case and thus fell in error in holding that the offence had been duly proved against the appellant.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of the learned Authority is restored.
A.E.