DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi dated 15th August, 1989, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a workman working with the respondent. It is alleged that he pasted a pamphlet titled "Faisley Ka Asli Rukh", which contained matter subversive to the discipline of the establishment, on the notice board for which he was served with charge sheet on 29-12-1987. The enquiry was ordered to be fixed on 29-8-1988, but he did not attend the enquiry, therefore, it was completed in his absence and he was found guilty of the charge. Subsequently second show-cause notice was issued and after that he was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order he served grievance notice upon the respondent and then filed the grievance petition.
3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for the appellant and Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for the. Respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The fact, that the appellant pasted the poster containing objectionable matter is not denied by the appellant even in the learned Labour Court. Neither in the grievance notice he has denied it nor in the grievance petition, nor in the affidavit-in-evidence. Admittedly he was served with the notice of enquiry but he failed to attend the enquiry proceedings.
5. It appears that two contentions were raised before the learned Labour Court. Firstly that the statements of witnesses were not recorded by the learned Enquiry Officer on oath and secondly he was not supplied with the copies of the documents. The learned Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the contentions of the appellant in the impugned order. The learned Labour Court has relied upon PLD 1967 SC 62, wherein it has been held that the enquiry does not become invalid if the witness is not given oath. With regard to the other contention the learned Labour Court has held that the application for documents made by the respondent was not clear as to what sort of documents he had requested to be supplied with. Furthermore, it is pointed, that the appellant had already given explanation to the show-cause notice, before making the application for supply of the documents. As pointed above he did not participate in the enquiry. I have gone through the evidence on record and find that the findings of the learned Labour Court are based on the evidence on record and do not require to be disturbed.
6. Mr. S.P. Lodhi contended that the Officer who signed the written statement had not been examined and, therefore, the case of the appellant stood unrebutted. I am afraid, I cannot agree with him. In case the Officer, who signed the written statement, is not examined, the written statement cannot be considered as part of the evidence, but the respondents are not precluded from producing other evidence in rebuttal of the case of the appellant. They can even rely on any evidence on record to repel the contention of the appellant. In this case as pointed above, the factum of pasting of the pamphlet is not denied. I have gone through the contents of the pamphlet. It contains the objectionable material which is obviously subversive of discipline. It is misconduct under item (h) of the Standing Order 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
7. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, further raised the contention, that the appellant was charge-sheeted under section 5 of the Pakistan Essential Services (maintenance) Act, 1952 and, therefore, he could not have been dismissed from service under Standing Orders Ordinance. The Standing Orders Ordinance does not provide for framing any formal charge-sheet, but the only requirement of Standing Order 15(4) is that act of misconduct should be brought to the notice of the accused person which has been done in this case. Mere mention of the section 5 of the Pakistan Essential Services (maintenance)
Act, in the charge-sheet would not invalidate the charge-sheet which clearly mentions the act of misconduct which was brought to the notice of the appellant.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.