DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 28-2-1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No, III at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition under section 25- A, 1969, of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits and also an option to the appellant-establishment to hold fresh inquiry against the respondent on the same charge through some other Enquiry Officer, if they so desire.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been permanent workman working as Store Clerk in the appellant-establishment's factory and also a General Secretary of Buxly Paints Ltd. Staff Progressive Union due to which, he had incurred displeasure of the management. It was claimed by the respondent that he was charge-sheeted on baseless allegations only with a view to victimize him and to dispense with his services, resulting in his removal from service through a fake enquiry. Being aggrieved, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
3. The appellant-establishment resisted the petition on the ground that as the charge of misconduct was established in a properly held enquiry in which the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend, resulting in his dismissal from service, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross- examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Samad, the learned Advocate for the appellant-establishment at length and Mr. Mahmood Habibullah, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact on record that the alleged enquiry against the respondent was quite improper and contrary to the mandatory requirements.
The Enquiry Officer, closed the statement of the respondent abruptly and did not allow him to record his detailed statement in his defence and also no defence witness was allowed to be produced. The enquiry officer was also partial while recording the evidence of the witness of the appellant-establishment. In view of this position I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and need not to be interfered with. However, Mr. Abdul Samad, the learned Advocate for the appellant-establishment has submitted that all possible rules governing the principles of natural justice and the provisions of law were most rigidly followed and adopted by the enquiry officer during the whole course of the enquiry proceedings, therefore there was no mala fides on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Samad, the learned Advocate further contended that a witness, namely, Sohail Ahmad Farooqi was examined in Court to whom the respondent voluntarily stated to be his witness before the Enquiry Officer but, this Sohail Ahmad Farooqi did not support the respondent in his cross-examination. He, further submitted that there was no defect or illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the domestic enquiry which was quite fair, impartial and reasonable and that the enquiry officer like a Judicial Officer was empowered to discard and disallow the irrelevant statement and facts related or connected with the charge-sheet as provided in the Evidence Act. Mr. Abdul Samad, the learned Advocate further pleaded that the learned Labour Court could not sit into appeal over findings of the domestic enquiry unless the findings were perverse, arbitrary or contradictory. I see no force in any of the contention.; of Mr. Abdul Samad, the learned Advocate for the appellant-establishment. From the evidence brought on record, it is crystal clear and an established position that the enquiry was quite improper, illegal, partial and perverse therefore, the dismissal from service of the respondent must be set aside. However, if the appellant-establishment so desire, I would allow them to hold fresh enquiry against the respondent on the same charge-sheet through another impartial and fair person.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but, with only 30% (thirty per cent) back benefits.