DECISION This is an appeal by Messrs Rohri Cement Works, against the impugned order, dated 19-11-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Ali Gohar, filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent, Ali Gohar was appointed as Heavy Equipment Operator with effect from 18-10-1972. He was served with show-cause notice, dated 28-6-1981 with the allegations that on 29-5-1981 while he was on duty in the second shift and was operating the diesel shovel UH-20, the Mechine caught fire at about 2-00 p.m., due to his act of gross negligence and that he willfully damaged the property of the respondents. As the reply of the respondent to the show-cause notice was found un-satisfactory, therefore, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and more than 20 witnesses were examined in the enquiry. That the Inspector of Mines, Government of Sind, Sukkur also had conducted the enquiry, wherein he had held the officers of the appellant Establishment as responsible for the damages and not the respondent. The findings of the Inspector of Mines were intentionally supressed by the appellant management and eventually the respondent was dismissed from service on 30-9-1981. The respondent, then, after observing formalities, filed a grievance Petition No. 78 of 1981, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, which was allowed by the learned VIIth Sind Labour Court, Sukkur, and the respondent was ordered to be re- instated in service with full back benefits, vide its order, dated 20-4-1982. This Tribunal, vide its order, dated 22-12-1982, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant Management, but, an option to the management was given to hold an enquiry against the respondent within the period of three months from the date of the order and made the award of back benefits to the respondent dependent upon the result of the fresh enquiry. The appellant management, vide its letter, dated 29-1-1983, constituted a new Enquiry Committee and the respondent was directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee on 1-2-1983. Then the respondent had submitted an application to the Chief Inspector of Mines for supplying copy of the enquiry report made by the Inspector of Mines Sukkur regarding this incident and the respondent requested the appellant management for an adjournment of the enquiry proceedings. However, the enquiry was adjourned to 4-2-1983, but, as further adjournment was allowed and the fresh enquiry proceedings started from 8-2-1983 and on the basis of this enquiry, a second show-cause notice was served upon the respondent vide letter, dated 12-3-1983. Thereafter, the appellant Management had dismissed the services of the respondent vide its letter, dated 17-3-1983. The respondent thereafter submitted a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, who passed the impugned order.
3. I have heard Mr.Shabbir Ahmad Awan, Learned Advocate for the appellant Management and Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended on behalf of the appellant management that the machine was perfect and had caught fire due to the carelessness and negligence of the respondent, that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and as such, the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that Diesel Shovel UH-20 was burnt due to the negligence of the respondent and that in view of the orders of this Tribunal, fresh domestic enquiry was properly and legally conducted and on the basis of findings of such enquiry, the respondent was rightly dismissed from service and that no right of the respondent, guaranteed or secured has been infringed.
4. The contentions of the respondent are that the departmental enquiry held by the Enquiry Committee is improper and illegal and that the order of dismissal from service is against the Law and the facts. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses of the department, it is evident that all the witnesses have been cross-examined by the Enquiry Committee, then, by the respondent or his representation Riaz Ahmad and thereafter, again they have been cross-examined by the Chairman or the Member of the Enquiry Committee. No opportunity to the respondent has been provided to cross-examine the witnesses after they were cross-examined either by the Chairman or the Member of the Enquiry Committee. This shows that the matter extarcted by Chairman or the Member of the Enquiry Committee by cross-examining the witnesses, could be rebutted by the respondent as he has not been provided an opportunity to cross-examine them after they were cross---examined by the Chairman or the Member of the Enquiry Committee and naturally this must have caused prejudice to the respondent. Thus, the procedure of conducting the departmental enquiry adopted by the Enquiry Committee is illegal and against the principle of Natural Justice and is likely to cause prejudice to the respondent. The appellant management in its reply statement as well as in its evidence through affidavit of Lal Khan, Exh.4, has not said that there is direct evidence against the respondent regarding the alleged misconduct of gross negligence on his part which could be the cause to set fire to the Shovel Machine. The witness of the appellant Management, Muhammad Chuttal Exh.l/X has failed to place the responsibility on the respondent that due to his negligence or carelessness, the Shoval Machine caught fire resulting in heavy losses to the employer. Thus, no punishment can be awarded merely on presumptions and assumptions.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no force in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order of the learned labour Court, is, therefore, maintained with the modification only to the extent that fifty per cent (50$) back benefits be paid to the respondent forthwith. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.