DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned President Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, dated June 23, lv73, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of appellant filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), for his re-instatement. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed as a Line Jobber since 1965 in the Mills of the respondent.
He was charge-sheeted on 10th November 1970, for misconduct and dismissed from service on 18th November 1970. He made an application on 4th January 1971, giving rise to the impugned order. He challenged the 6rder of dismissal mainly on the ground that the enquiry was not fair. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and in keeping with the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, dismissed the application.
3. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that the conclusion of the learned Labour Court is based on evidence, which should not have been allowed to be brought on record. Mr. Ali Amjad contended, relying on the Order-Sheet of 17th August 1972, that the parties had closed their case. The Order-Sheet, which is in the handwriting of the learned Presiding Officer of the Court, reads as under:-- "Parties present.
Both sides have closed their sides. The matter is now fixed for arguments. Parties are directed to file Written Arguments on 15-9-72.'* 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant contends that the parties having closed their sides on 17th August 1972, the learned Labour Court should not have allowed the application of the respondents dated 17-10-72, to produce their witnesses for cross- examination by his order dated 11th April 1973. Mr. Ali Amjad contends that the grounds for producing Mr. Saeed Ahmad, the Enquiry Officer, for cross-examination are not substantiated by the record of this case. The main grounds are in Paragraphs 3 and 4, of the application. They run as under:-- "(3) That Mr. Saeed Ahmed and Mr. Ikhlas Ahmed were to be cross- examined on 14-7-72, which was adjourned to 17-8-72. 1975 1St(4) That the diary of 17-8-72 shows that due to soni3 confusion or misunderstanding the cro$*-examiaatijn of tha respondent witnesses was closed, although t&ere is no such order of this Hm'ble Court on the file."
5. The grounds, reproduced above, are wholly against the narration of facts in the Order-Sheet. In the first place, there is notniag in the Order-* Sheet of 14-7-72, to suggest that the case was adjourned to 17-8-72, for cross-examination of Saeed Ahmed and Ikhlas Ahmed. The Order-Sheet of 14th July 1972, reads as under: - "Applicant present. Adjourned to 1-8-72."
6. The above Order-Sheet in fact shows that no one even was present on behalf of the respondent, much less that the matter was adjourned to 17-8-72 for cross- examination of the two witnesses of the respondent. The Order-Sheet of lst august 1V72, reads as under:-- "Applicant preseat. At his request adjourned to 17-8-72."
7. On the lst of August 1972, also no one was present for the respon dent. The Order-Sheet of 17th August 1972, has already been reproduced above. The said Order-Sheet cannot be said to be the result of any confusion or misunderstanding, lt is in the handwriting of the Presiding Officer himself. He is supposed to have given a correct narration of what transpired on 17th August 1972. I have come to the conclusion that the respondents had closed their case, thereby they gave up their right to produce their witnesses for cross-examination. That the respondents voluntarily gave up their witnesses is further supported by two facts. As early as on 14th February 1972, an application was made by the respondents praying as under:-- ' < "It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to order production of the enquiry proceedings and in interest of expeditious disposal of the case disallow production or examination of any witness."
8. In the secpnd place, the Order-Sheet of 15th September 1972, also supports the contention of Mr. Ali Amjad that the application to produce the two witnesses for cross-examination was an afterthought. The Order-Sheet of 15th September 1972, reads as under :-- "Parties present. Both request for time to file Written Arguments. Allowed.
Adjourned to 17-10-72 for Written Arguments."
9. It was on 17th October 1972, that an application was made by the respondents, already mentioned, that they should be allowed to produce their two witnesses for cross-examination. Had the respondents not given up their two witnesses, as stated in the Order-Sheet of 17th August 1972, they would have protested at their earliest, i.e. on 15th September 1972 and not asked for time to file Written Arguments.
10. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Court dated 11th April 1973, allowing the two witnesses to be cross-examined, after the parties had closed their case, as late as on 17th August 1972, reads as under "As far as this application is concerned, I have read the Diary dated 17-8-72 showing that both sides have closed their cases. There is no such note by the parties or their Representatives."
11. I fail to understand what the learned Labour Court meant by above observation. The Order-Sheet of 17th August 1972, which has already been reproduced, is in the handwriting of the learned Labour Court himself and which clearly states that botn parties were present and tnat both sides had closed their sides. I do not doubt what is stated in the Order-Sheet of 17th August 1972. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court should not have re-opened the case. l2. Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned Representative for the respondent very strenuously contend* that the Court m the interest of justice had inherent power to summon any record or to examine any witnesses. The learned Labour Court is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence. It is true, the learned Labour Court on its own can examine any witness or summon any document that it thinks necessary in the interest of justice, after giving an opportunity to tne other side also. In the present case, the Courti had not allowed these witnesses to be produced in the interest of justice or because it considered it necessary in the interest of justice to examine these two witnesses. There is. no such remak by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court should have given some cogent reasons for allowing the two witnesses to be produced by the respondents, after he had closed their case. I would, therefore, hold that the application should not have been allowed. In the result, the statement of these two witnesses should be ignored for the purposes of determination of this case.
13. There now remains only the statement of the appellant in support of his case. He had filed his affidavit. He was also cross-examined. He admitted to have received the charge-sheet. The appellant, in the affidavit, stated as under:-- "That, I, to be on the safe side, presented myself for enquiry and also produced my witnesses on 15-11-70. In the enquiry not a single man said anything against me. Seeing this the respondents did not read out the recorded statements and neither they got the signatures'of any body on the statement in spite of my demand."
14. There is no cross- examination of the appellant on this point. II am inclined to hold that the enquiry against the appellant was not fair. iL would order that the appellant be re-instated forthwith. He would, however,! not be entitled to full back benefits. The application was filed on 4th January 1971 and the award had been given on 23rd June 1973 after more than 3 years. This is a simple case. It should not have taken 3 years for disposal. In case, the respondents were to hold a fresh enquiry and find that the appellant is not guilty of the misconduct, he was charged with, he would be paid a year's wages as compensation. If the respondents intend to charge-sheet the appellant, they should complete the enquiry within a month, otherwise the appellant would be deemed to have been exonerated of the charge of misconduct. The respondents to pay Rs. 200 as costs to Mr. Ali Amjad within a week.