The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision, dated 5-2-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, whereby Inayat Ali (hereinafter called as the respondent) has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Pakistan Oxygen Limited (hereinafter described as the appellant has challenged the direction of reinstatement. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegations, for which the respondent was charge sheeted and after holding an inquiry dismissed from service, were that on 4-2-1986 at 5 p.m. he was found catching stray paper kites during working hours and when Mr. Shahsawar, Shift Engineer, prevented him from wasting duty hours and advised him to go back to the place of his duty, he disobeyed the order and misbehaved in a very rude manner using filthy language. When Nisar Ahmad, Durwan, under the instructions of Mr. Shahsawar tried to take the kites from the respondent, the latter abused both of them and manhandled Nisar Ahmad. Both the persons namely Shahsawar and Nisar Ahmad appeared before the Inquiry Officer in support of the complaint. The defence version put forward by the respondent was that he was working in the compound of the mills as helper and that a mark fell at a distance of about 40 yards and the respondent had gone there in search of it. While he was searching the mark, stray paper kites fell in the compound which he lifted and that he delivered those kites to Mistri Muhammad Shafi and not to Nisar Ahmad, Durwan in obedience to the order of the Shift Incharge, which annoyed him and he manoeuvered a complaint against him for misconduct and insubordination. This is also the case of the respondent that he had compromised with Nisar Ahmad but after five or six days another complaint was taken from him by the Management, on the basis of which he was charge sheeted and dismissed.
3. The learned lower Court has not accepted the prosecution version for the reason that the witnesses who were examined by the Management before the Inquiry Officer were not produced in the Court. This was not necessary. The offence was to be proved during the inquiry and not in the Labour Court. However, none of the two complaints made by Nisar Ahmad was brought on the record. The factum of compromise affected between the respondent and Nisar Ahmad is not disputed. Ordinarily the production of complaints during the inquiry is not necessary unless the person under inquiry asks for it but in the present case since there were two complaints, which, according to the respondent, were discrepant, therefore, it was necessary to bring on the record both of them or at least one made by Nisar Ahmad earlier which was withdrawn on account of compromise affected between him and the respondent vide compromise deed Exh.P.5.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that since the respondent had gone at a distance of 40 yards in search of a mark, he did not absent himself from duty and such an allegation was wrong. Even if it be said that the respondent had left the place of duty not in search of a mark but had gone to the compound of the mills to catch falling kites, his act did not amount to misconduct. Admittedly he had attended his duties on the day of incident and simply to catch falling kites he had, after leaving the place of his duty, gone to the compound. Temporary absence for a few minutes from the place of duty does not constitute misconduct.
5. So far as the allegation of abusing the Shift Engineer and manhandling Nisar Ahmad is concerned, since the earlier complaint was not brought on the record, the case has become doubtful. If that complaint did not contain any allegation of beating and abusing it would have been brought on the record, it would have supported the version given by the respondent. No doubt the prosecution witness deposed before the Inquiry Officer that he had brought the complaint and was producing it, but since the said complaint was not exhibited in evidence and is not on the record, his statement that he had produced it in evidence is not correct. If he had produced that complaint, it would have been exhibited in evidence and also would have been present on the record. In cases where prosecution version and the defence version put forward by the worker both are found to be plausible, then the one which goes in favour of the worker is to be believed and accepted. In the present case when the prosecution version and defence version are put in juxtaposition, the prosecution version does not appear to be plausible. The respondent may have caught one or two kites and this is not believable that he felt offended and went to the extent of abusing and beating Nisar Ahmad and abusing the Shift Engineer only at this that the Shift Engineer had asked Nisar Ahmad to take kites from him. The respondent may have refused to deliver the kites to Nisar Ahmad but this is not believable that he had manhandled Nisar Ahmad and indulged in abusing. The case, therefore, is doubtful.
6. So far as back benefits are concerned, no doubt P.Ws. 1 and 3 examined by the respondent had deposed before the learned lower Court that the respondent remained jobless after his dismissal from service but the respondent himself did not say anything in this respect. He did not say that he had remained without any earnings. So back benefits have been rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court.
7. As a result of the discussion made above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed. 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.