1. Ghulam Farid Mazari, Alta Dad Khan, Abdul Rashid, Sufi Mohammad Usman, Nisar Ahmed Bhatti and Azhar Mirza, petitioners have filed separate applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the Management of Khurram Chemical Company Limited, Rawalpindi for their re-instatement and consequential benefits. By my order dated 29-1-7 3 Applications Nos.
2. 947, 948, 400 and 951 were consolidated and tae proceed--ings have been recorded in Petition No. 947 of 1972. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions and Petitions Nos.
3. 950 and 952, therefore, all these petitions shall be decided by this order.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they were served with charge-sheets on 25th and 26th August 1972 containing allegations that they had gone on illegal strike, instigated other workers for going on strike and engaged themselves in riotous and disorderly behaviour. Then a joint enquiry was field against them and they were dismissed from service on 18-9-72. The petitioners have contended that the enquiry was not properly held as they were not given any opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and their objections to the presence of Mr. Usman lqbal in the Board of Enquiry was rejected without any justification. It is further alleged that the office-bearer petitioners were dismissed from service during the pendency of an industrial dispute and their dismissal is illegal.
5. The respondent resisted the petition and contended that the orders of dismissal are proper and in accordance with law. The parties were given opportunity to produce their evidence. Both the parties stated that the Show-cause notices, replies to the show-cause notices, memorandum sated 30-8-72, findings of the Board of Enquiry, second show-cause notices, replies to the second show-cause notices, and the dismissal orders may be read as evidence the petitioners slid not produce any other evidence while the respondent examined Mr. S. M. Ashraf, Registrar, Trade Unions, Rawalpindi and Mr. Shamsul Haq, Manager, and closed their case.
6. Arguments heard and record perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Board of Enquiry was not properly consti--tuted because one of its members namely Mr. Usman Iqbal, was not an independent person and his position being that of a complainant and witness, the petitioners were prejudiced by his presence in the Board of Enquiry, `The contention appears to be well founded. The learned counsel has carried me through the Enquiry Proceeding Exh. R. 6 on File No. 947/72, wherein at page No. 6 it is in the statement of Mr. Jamil Akhtar P. W. That Mr. Usman lqbal addressed the striking workers and told them that the illegal strike resorted to by them was an offence. Upon this Mr. Mazari, petitioner stood up and asked Mr. Usman lqbal as to in what capacity he was addressing them to which the latter replied that he was addressing them as an officer of the Company upon which Mr. Mazari said that the officers were the enemies of the workers and workers were the enemies of the officers, Mr. Jamil Akhtar has further stated that the situation became tense and then he went forward and addressed the workers and tried to console them. It is also in the enquiry proceedings at page 7 that Mr. Usman Iqbal apprised the Manager of the conversation that took place between him and the workers. From the above it is very clear that the position of Mr. Usman Iqbal was that of a witness or a complainant and he was so connected with the case as to prejudge it. There is a string of rulings of the superior Courts that it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. An enquiry which is con--ducted by a person who was in the position of a witness and in which no opportunity was given to the person charged to cross-examine him cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to page 5 of the Enquiry Proceedings Exh. R. 6 wherein it is mentioned that all the petitioners had expressed their confidence in the Board of Enquiry and contended that the presence of Mr. Usman lqbal in the said Board was not prejudicial to the petitioner. This fact cannot come to the rescue of the respondent because at later stages of the Enquiry the petitioners had repeatedly requested for the removal of Mr. Usman Iqbal from the Board but every time their request was turned down. In view of the above, I feel inclined to the view that the enquiry was not held properly and the order of dismissal which is based on the findings of the Enquiry Board cannot be allowed to stand.
7. For the foregoing reasons I accept these petitions, set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioners and direct the Management to re-instate them with back benefits within a week from today.