DECISION This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 15-4-1989, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. M. Saleem Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant admittedly was working as Steam Operator with the respondents. On 28-3-1984 the appellant is alleged to have abused the Assistant Laundry Manager, Mr. Tehsin Ali, who reported to Laundry Manager, Mr. Umer Malik, who reported to Personnel Officer, Mr. Musharraf Ali Khan. The appellant was issued a charge-sheet, dated 29-3- 1984, and in the domestic enquiry, he was held to be guilty of the charge. Consequently, he was dismissed, vide order, dated 30-7-1984. After serving the grievance notice upon the respondents, he filed the grievance petition.
4. The main attack of the appellant is that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Mr. Saleem Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed to the admissions of Mr. Zubairi, the Enquiry Officer, who was examined by the respondents. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the applicant had misbehaved with him during the enquiry proceedings and that he had made such note in the enquiry proceedings. It also appears that the appellant had moved applications against the Enquiry Officer which have been produced as Exh. R-1 to R-4 making allegations against the enquiry officer. These applications have been replied to by the respondents under Exhs.
R-5 to R-8. I have also gone through the record of the enquiry proceedings. It appears that Mr. M.U.
Malik was examined by the Enquiry Officer on 30-4-1984, but, the appellant refused to cross- examine him and wanted some time. Consequently, it was postponed to 2-5-1984. The proceedings of 2-5-1984, show that the appellant came late and misbehaved with the Enquiry Officer and walked away without cross-examining the witness. He did not appear on the next dates i,e, 4-5-1984 or on 27-5-1984, when the enquiry was fixed. He, however, appeared on 28-5-1984, and cross-examined Mr. Malik and the other witnesses. The record clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer has been fair to the appellant in spite of his misbehaviour. The contention of the appellant that he did not cross-examine the witnesses is belied from the record of enquiry proceedings which are admittedly signed by the appellant. Appellant's contention, that he was forced to sign the enquiry papers also does not appeal to reason. When he could misbehave with enquiry officer; make applications against him; refuse to proceed with the case; it is not possible to believe that he would sign the enquiry papers under compulsion or force. The accused person cannot be allowed to misbehave with the enquiry officer and then seek the transfer of the enquiry officer on that account. If such contention of an accused person is accepted, then, no enquiries can ever be completed as an accused person, when he finds the enquiry is going against him; can misbehave with enquiry officer and ask for his transfer. This contention of the appellant is, therefore, not tenable.
5. The second plea raised by the learned counsel of the appellant is that the copy of the complaint was not supplied to him and that he was not given second show-cause notice before the dismissal order was passed. The charge-sheet fully describes the charges and substances. It was not necessary to supply the copy of the complaint. Reference may be made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Messrs Lucky Silk Mills v. Khaliqur Rehman, reported in 1979 PLC 5. The accused had full knowledge of the charges against him and he was given full opportunity to cross- examine the complainant. As such, he cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the non-supply of the copy of the complaint.
6. With regard to his contention of non-service of second show-cause notice, this controversy, as to whether the second show-cause notice is necessary or not; has been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills v. Guftar Shah reported in PLD 1981 SC 225. In that case, their Lordships have observed that "second show-cause notice after completion of enquiry was not a requirement of rules of natural justice". Their Lordships had held that only requirement under Standing Order 15(4) was to give information of alleged misconduct to the accused person and an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against the workman and to defend himself by cross-examining witnesses and examining himself or any other witnesses in defence."
7. The appellant claims that he had been implicated because of enmity with M.U. Malik, who wanted him to become "Qadiani" and to pay him bribe. It is a settled law that where a party alleges mala fides, the burden is upon. that party to strictly prove the malice. The learned Labour Court has rightly pointed that there is no proof to prove this malice. Mere allegation would not be sufficient to prove the malice.
8. It is further contended by Mr. Saleem Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant that the enquiry was not held with the approval of the employer. It is, however, admitted that the dismissal order was passed with the approval of the employer which is borne out from the document, marked as `C-1'. Standing Order 15(4) requires that the enquiry should be held with the approval of the employer, but, does not provide that such an approval be in writing. The fact that the enquiry proceedings were seen by the employer, who ordered the issuance of the dismissal order, would indicate that the enquiry was held with the approval of the employer. This objection of the learned counsel for the appellant also has no force. The evidence before the enquiry officer clearly proved the charges against the appellant. The use of abusive language against the superiors by a worker during the working hours is an act subversive of discipline and is misconduct. Considering all the