DECISION This is an appeal, jointly filed by the appellants, namely, (1) Noor Muhammad, (2) Muhammad Latif,
(3) Khalid Shoib, (4) Arif Raza and (5) Abdul Majeed, against the impugned order, dated 12-3-1981, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed; the grievance petitions of the appellants filed by them under section 25-A, I.R.0.,1969.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that these five appellants were employed in the respondent Establishment. That on 17-3-1981, they were issued charge-sheets alongwith other two workmen, namely, Muhammad Razzaq and Muhammad Rafi, alleging therein that on 12-3-1981 at about 12-00 a.m.; these appellants stormed the office room of the Chief Executive of the respondent Establishment, Mr. Sharif, who was then engaged in his official work. That the said employees shouted and abused him in filthy language, dragged him, slapped and kicked him and thereafter bodily lifted him from his chair and threw him near the gate of the office. That a report of the incident was lodged by Mr. Sharif with the Police who challaned the said employees in a Criminal Court, but the said criminal case ended in acquittal of the employees mainly on account of the fact that the complainant, Mr. Shafi, did not appear before the trial Court. That, apart of these proceedings, a report of the incident was also made to Mr. Shafique Inayat Nlirza, the Chairman, National Press Trust, Islamabad, who, vide his letter, dated 15-3-1981 directed the Personnel Officer of the respondent Establishment to charge-sheet the culprits concerned and to take all appropriate steps and start the enquiry by appointing one or more Inquiry Officers under the rules and pursue the matter with other authorities to seek redress. That thereupon the appellants submitted their explanations denying the charges and requested for the supply of the copy of the complaint which was supplied to them, vide letter, dated 24-3-1981. That the domestic enquiry was held against each of the appellant but they boycotted the same on the ground that Mr. Sharif should be made to proceed on leave and that an officer from Islamabad be called to conduct the said enquiry. That further, on the date of enquiry the appellants made their presence and subsequently boycotted the same also on the ground that they have sent a representation to the Chairman, National Press Trust, so, his reply to that be awaited. That on 18-4-1981, an ex parte enquiry was held against the appellants and vide letter, dated 5-5-1981, the appellants were dismissed from service, thus, they submitted grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.
3. The case of the respondent Establishment before the Labour Court was that as the appellants had committed gross misconducts, therefore, they were properly charge-sheeted and a lawful and valid domestic enquiry was held against them but they had boycotted the same, so, an ex parte enquiry was held against them resulting in their dismissal. That before the issuance of the dismissal letters the appellants were afforded full opportunities of defence and also the second show-cause notices as well as personal hearings. Therefore, the appellants were not legally entitled to maintain their grievance petitions before the Labour Court.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence before the Labour Court and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court rejected the grievance petitions of the appellants, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Noor Muhammad, one of the appellants, an application for adjournment sent by Mr. Hameed Siddiqi, Advocate for the appellants has been rejected. I have also heard Mr. Safdar Hussain, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Establishment and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case.
6. It was argued by Mr. Safdar Hussain the learned counsel for the respondent Establishment that there was no illegality or irregularity committed in holding the domestic enquiry against the appellants as the appellants had not assailed the method of conducting the enquiry and that there is an admitted fact that the appellants had boycotted the domestic enquiry on their own, therefore, there was no alternate with the Enquiry Officer, but to proceed ex parte, and all legal formalities were observed inasmuch as second show-cause notices alongwith enquiry report were also supplied to each of the appellants. It was further contended that the appellants were dismissed from service vide order of the Chairman, National Press Trust, dated 5-5-1981, who after consideration of the explanations of the appellants and found them guilty of the misconduct. Mr. Safdar Hussain, the lean d counsel for the respondent Establishment has argued that the Enquiry Officer has correctly held the domestic enquiry as ex parte and did not wait for the final decision of the Chairman, National Press Trust on the alleged representations submitted to him by the appellants and that copy of this representation was also not submitted by them before the Enquiry Officer. In this behalf, he had referred me to the observations of this Tribunal made in an Appeal No. KAR-350 of 1982, filed by one of the co-accused if the present incident, namely, Muhammad Razzaq and while dismissing the said appeal on 15-9-1982, this Tribunal has observed as under: - ---Since the Chairman already directed holding of domestic enquiry against the offenders and he had not stayed this action, the management had rightly proceeded with the holding of the domestic enquiry.--- Thus, the domestic enquiry was quite proper, fair and accordance with the principles of natural justice and the appellants should be responsible themselves for their own deeds. I, therefore, hold that as the charges against the appellants were clearly established in the said enquiry, therefore, they were rightly dismissed from service. A There is also nothing on record to prove that the actions against the appellants were incorrect or incompetent. As the appellant, Noor Muhammad, who is present before me has no legs to stand contrary to the contentions of the respondent Establishment, therefore, I hold that the appellants have no case.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, I maintain it. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.