DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No.1 at Karachi, who by an order, dated 20-8-1985, has re-instated the respondent with full back benefits.
2. The facts are that respondent; Muhammad Sharif was a permanent workman of the appellant corporation for a period of 11 years and was working as Mechanical Helper. It was claimed by the respondent that his service record was unblemished. On 10-7-1984, the respondent was issued a charge-sheet dated 15-2-1984, that he is a habitual of narcotic. A domestic enquiry was held but allegedly neither the witnesses were cross-examined in the presence of the respondent nor the respondent was allowed to lead any evidence in his defence. He was dismissed in a domestic enquiry. The respondent then served grievance notice and ultimately filed the present application for his re-instatement.
3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was found guilty of misconduct after due enquiry, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief and his application is liable to be dismissed.
4. The parties filed their respective affidavits and the witnesses were cross-examined by the representatives of the parties.
5. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellants and perused the record. The sole point which requires determination is, whether the dismissal of the respondent from service is legal and valid. The respondent in his cross-examination stated that he was not referred to the Medical Officer, K. T. C., and so, he went to the Chief Medical Officer but Dr. Irshad Qazi also did not examine him. It is further urged that the enquiry officer also did not record the statement of the complainant in the presence of the respondent who was also not given any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. In the charge-sheet it is alleged that Dr. Qazi Irshad to whom the respondent was referred had disclosed that the respondent was addicted in narcotic and in such a condition it is not proper to perform the duties. In the domestic enquiry, the report, Zawar Hussain Shah in his statement also relied on the medical examination report of Dr. Qazi Irshad. It is surprising that neither Dr. Qazi Irshad was examined in the domestic enquiry nor in the Labour Court and the medical examination report, if any, has also not been produced in evidence.
The appellants examined two witnesses, namely, Mansab Dar, who is the enquiry officer and Zair Abbas Rizvi, District Manager, North Karachi Depot. Mansab Dar, the enquiry offices in his cross- examination stated as follows: - ---I have studied upto class VI. Voluntarily adds I also passed Army Second Class Roman Urdu, May Reading Second Class, English Third Class. The affidavit, which I filed in Court, was prepared by our Legal Adviser. This bears my signature. I had signed this affidavit in our Head Quarters before our Legal Adviser only. I see the enquiry report (Exh.A-1). This was prepared by me, in Urdu and was handed over to the then District Manager who had dismissed the applicant. The said enquiry report was translated into English by the District Manager and it was read over to me and then I signed the same.--- From the above cross-examination, it clearly indicates that the enquiry report Exh. A-1 was not prepared by the enquiry officer himself and his original report which was in Urdu language has not been brought on record. The District Manager in his cross-examination also admitted that Dr. Qazi or any of his assistants were not examined by the enquiry officer and they also did not appear before him in the domestic enquiry.
6. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the domestic enquiry was improper and the charge-sheet itself is totally vague and not sustainable in that not a single instance has B been cited or even proved to show that during the entire period of 11 years of service, the respondent was ever found indulging in narcotics. In the cross-examination, the District Manager, Zawar Abbas Rizvi has himself admitted that the respondent was awarded merit certificate which is also on record, Exh. R-1/1.
7. In the conclusion, I need not interfere into the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. I, therefore, uphold it and would dismiss the appeal in limine. I would, however, not allow the back benefits to the respondent.