1. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner ex-Senior Clerk, Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila has moved this application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, I y69 against the respondent for his re-instatement and consequential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent-Company as Senior Clerk Stores on 25- 8-1970. On 22-8-1972 he attended to his duty. On 23-E-1972 he was on sick leave. On 24, 25-8-1972 he remained under the treatment of a doctor and came to the factory on 26-8-1972 when he was informed that he had been suspended w.e.f. 25-8-1972. On the same day he was served with charge-sheet Exh. P.
1. He sent his reply to the charge-sheet ; then an enquiry was held against him.
3. The petition has alleged that his statement was recorded before the prosecution evidence and that the Management held secret enquiry against him and obtained certain information from the doctor in his absence on which the findings of the' enquiry committee are based. On the basis of finding of the enquiry committee he was dismissed from service on 23-9-1972. Then he sent a grievance nonce to the respondent but to no avail. Thereafter he filed the instant petition.
4. The respondent resisted the petition. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the charge of taking part in illegal strike on 24-8-1972. It is contended that the order of dismissal was passed after a proper enquiry and therefore it cannot be called in question.
5. The parties were given opportunity to produce their evidence. The petitioner examined himself as his own witness and closed his evidence. The respondent examined Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, Acting Deputy Manager of the industry in rebuttal.
6. The point for determination before the Board of Enquiry was as to whether on 24, 25-8-1972 the petitioner was on strike or was under the treatment of the doctor alleged by him. In the enquiry report Exh. R-7 it is stated that the board of enquiry held it necessary to verify the documents (medical certificate) and the statement of the petitioner regarding his illness. Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, R. W. 1 has admitted in cross--examination that the verification of the petitioner's alleged ailment was made from Dr. Saeed at Rawalpindi on 16-8-1973 and the petitioner was not informed about the date and place of verification. He has further stated that the opinion of the Company's Medical officer regarding the illness of the petitioner was also obtained on 16-9-1972 and the said Medical Officer was not examined as witness. It is also in the statement of this witness that the entire prosecution evidence was recorded by the Board of Enquiry on 19-9-1972. This shows that before recording the prosecution evidence the board of enquiry had already obtained verification and opinion from the two aforesaid doctors in the absence of the petitioner. In the enquiry report Exh. R-7 it is stated that "to cover the absence, accused has tried to take the help of medical certificate, which it appears, he obtained through mis-statement before the doctor". In view of this finding, the board of enquiry rejected the defence evidence produced by the petitioner before it.
7. The aforesaid doctors were not examined as witnesses nor their opinion was obtained in the presence of petitioner and he was prejudiced. Since the order of dismissal is based on the material which the petitioner had not opportunity to rebut therefore it is unsustainable.
8. For the foregoing reasons I accept this petition, set aside the orders of dismissal and direct the Management to re-instate him with all back benefits within a week from today.