Ghulam Haider, appellant herein, was a workman working as Line Sardar in the Winding Department of Messrs Latif Jute Mills, Hub Chowki, Baluchistan, respondent No.1 herein. It is alleged by the respondent No.1 that in the year 1980 the appellant buried a quantity of useable jute in the earth and threw away hundreds of spinning bobbins in rubbish bins in order to cause monetary loss to them. For this alleged misconduct the appellant was proceeded against under section 15
(3) (b) and (c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. In this connection a charge-sheet, dated 6-8-1980 was served upon the appellant wherein it was disclosed that the appellant had thrown away useable jute thread alongwith wastage in order to cause loss to the company and had also thrown away in the dust bins 100s of useable spinning bobbins in jute bags and that he had done this act under a plan. The appellant submitted reply to this charge-sheet on 7-8-1980 wherein he alleged that he had not caused any loss to the company but had destroyed wasted thread on the orders of one Mr. Siddiqui the Administrator of the Department. He also alleged in the reply to the show-cause notice that if any loss had been caused to the company it was due to the orders of the said Mr. Siddiqui and that a fictitious case of theft was registered against him as he was making efforts to organise a Trade Union of the workers of the company. But he was acquitted of the charge whereupon a case under the Prohibition Order was tried to be registered against him. It was further alleged by the appellant that for the reasons of formation of trade union he was being victimized by the respondent No.1.
After the reply a domestic inquiry was ordered to be held against the appellant and at first one Yusuf Malik, Assistant Labour Welfare Officer of the respondent No.1, was appointed Inquiry Officer but about a week thereafter Usma n Ramz, Labour Adviser of respondent No.1, was appointed Inquiry Officer. The latter carried out inquiry proceedings and recorded statements of witnesses and recommended the dismissal of the appellant from service. The respondent No.1, vide order, dated 9-9-1980, dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant issued a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and then filed an application before the Labour Court , which was dismissed on 19-6-1982. The appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal before my learned predecessor on 17-7-1982 which was accepted vide judgment, dated 19-12-1983. The appellant was ordered to be re-instated with all back benefits to which he would have been entitled. The respondent No.1 feeling aggrieved by this judgment filed a Constitutional Petition No.235 of 1983 in the Baluchistan High Court challenging the judgment, dated 19-12-1983 of my learned predecessor. This Constitutional Petition was accepted on 12-8-1985 on the ground that the judgment impugned in the constitutional petition was made on extraneous circumstances without considering the material before it and moreover the allegations of the appellant about victimization on account of trade union activities could not be a ground before the appellate Tribunal as it was a matter to be considered by the National Industrial Relations Commission under section 8(A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and have also gone through the record of the proceedings. The only charge against the appellant was that he had destroyed use- able jute thread in order to cause loss to the respondent No.1 and the contention of the former was that he had not personally destroyed any thread but had buried some wastages on the orders of one Mr. Siddiqui who was Manager of the concerned department of the mills. This was conditional statement of the appellant. However, a domestic inquiry was ordered to be held against him and the record of the inquiry shows that the Inquiry Officer did not proceed in the normal manner.
Before examining any evidence, the Inquiry Officer ordered the appellant to stand in the witness box and he not only recorded his statement forcibly but also put searching and embarrassing questions to the appellant in cross-examination. It is an admitted fact that the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of the appellant before recording any other evidence, as such he proceeded in a reverse manner. It is an established principle A that even in extra-judicial proceedings a normal procedure of inquiry has to be adopted which would be recording the prosecution evidence first and giving opportunity to the respondent for cross-examining the witnesses and then the defence evidence and then record the statement of the person against whom the inquiry is being conducted. However, in the case in hand the Inquiry Officer proceeded in the reverse order.
3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the inquiry Officer was not a law knowing man and having no judicial experience, it could not be expected of him to proceed in a proper manner and in this respect he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Afzal Khan v. The District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad and others 1969 PLC 431, Messrs Iqbal Silk Mills Limited, Karachi v. Mehmood Mian 1969 PLC 691 and Shaukat Ali v. The District Manager Government Transport Service Hyderabad, 1969 PLC 834. In all these cases it was held that if there was no basic defect in the inquiry proceedings, the same could not be shelved.
However, it can not be said that there was no basic defect in the domestic inquiry because the Inquiry Officer did not follow the proper procedure of conducting an inquiry and his demeanour shows that he intended to involve the appellant one way or the other to admit his guilt. Even before the Learned Labour Court an attempt was made by the respondent No.1 to over-awe the appellant. He was cross-examined for three days and was asked to reply to all sorts of unnecessary, unconnected and ambiguous question. Not only that searching questions were asked from the appellant by the Inquiry Officer in order to involve him in the matter by hook or crook and to show undue favour to the respondent No.1. His cross-examination is spread over 12 long pages. In such circumstances even if he had admitted that he had destroyed useable bobbins, this admission had to be considered in relation to his reply to the charge-sheet wherein he had clearly state, that he had destroyed wastage on the orders of the Manager of the concerned department of the mills. The learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate this point. In so far as the inherent defects in the inquiry are concerned reliance can be placed on the cases of Messrs Star Taxtile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Lal Muhammad 1978 PLC 311, Karachi Ship Yard and Engineering Works Ltd. v. Abdul Ghaffar 1980 PLC 688, Messrs Merck Sharp and Dohme of Pakistan Limited v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1982 PLC 148 and Abdul Qadir v. Messrs Sind Agricultural Supply Organization 1985 PLC 907.
4. There is yet another point. The charge-sheet was also very vague inasmuch as it did not disclose as to how much quantity of useable thread had been destroyed by the appellant as a result of which he was deprived of putting up any proper defence. No further action should have been taken on this vague charge-sheet which was not legal at all. In this respect I draw benefit from the case of M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Muhammad Sharif and 4 others 1984 PLC 1050.
5. The net result of the above discussion is that I would accept this appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the learned Labour Court and would order the re-instatement of the appellant in service forthwith with all back benefits to which he would have been entitled, had he not been illegally dismissed from service. The respondent shall also bear the costs of the appellant.
A.A. / 24-L