DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 20-11-1989, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, III at Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was admittedly employed as workman by the respondents. On 24-12-1987 he is alleged to have committed an act of wilful insubordination and disobedience to a lawful order given by the superior and also of disorderly behaviour subverise of discipline during working hours. On the complaint of one Aftab Alam, Production Supervisor, he was charge-sheeted for above acts of misconduct, on 24-12-1987. He replied to the charge-sheet which was not considered satisfactory by the management, which ordered domestic enquiry. In the domestic enquiry the appellant was held to be guilty of the acts of misconduct and therefore he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 6-7-1988. Aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondent. Failing to get any relief he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the order on three grounds.
Firstly that the charge-sheet was not signed by the competent authority viz. Employer therefore all subsequent proceedings are void, secondly, that in spite of no confidence expressed by the appellant against the Enquiry Officer the Enquiry Officer was not changed and thirdly, that there was no evidence to prove charges of misconduct as no independent witness had been examined.
5. Mr. M.L. Shahani contends that the charge- sheet has to be issued by the employer, who in the instant case is 'Factory Manager', whereas charge-sheet is issued by Muhammad Farooq Khan, Executive Personnel/ Administration: He, however, admitted that he did not raise this issue in the pleadings before the learned Labour Court but contended that appellant had raised this issue in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. He relied upon Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under:- "No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman."
The bare reading of this provision would show that there is no provision or requirement for issuance of charge-sheet but what is required is that the workman should be informed in writing of the alleged misconduct. It is not laid down that this information should be signed by the employer. It only requires that approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and institution of enquiry. This point was also considered by this Tribunal in the case of Zaheer Baig v.
Burmah Oil Mills 1983 PLC 759. In that case the charge-sheet and letter of appointment of Enquiry Officer was signed by Labour Officer and it was contended that in pursuance of such enquiry discharge orders were invalid. This Tribunal observed that clause (4) of Standing Order 15 does not require or envisage the issuance of any charge-sheet but only the bringing the fact of misconduct to the notice of the workman. The charge-sheet served upon the appellant must, therefore, be considered to be notice of the misconduct. As this notice was followed by holding of the domestic enquiry by the management I am of opinion that the charge-sheet fulfils the requirements of clause (4)".
6. Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that Mr. Muhammad Farooq Khan, who has signed the charge-sheet was also notified as 'Manager' under the 'Factories Act', as would be clear from the second show-cause notice Ex.R/1, which has been signed by Farooq Khan as `Executive Personnel/Admn and Notified Manager under Factories Act'.
The order of dismissal is signed by `Masood Elahi Khawaja', 'Factory Manager'. It may be argued that two persons cannot be considered as Factoiy Manager, as Factory Manager is notified by the 'Occupier' under section 9(1)(e) of the Factories Act in which word 'person' is used. Under the "Interpretation of Statutes' a 'singular' would include 'plural' and therefore 'person' could be read as 'persons' as there is no specific bar for notification of more than one Factory Manager. Besides as pointed out above, this plea was not specifically raised by the appellant nor does Standing Order 15(4) envisage issuance of notice or charge-sheet by the employer.
7. Mr. Shahani has contended that the appellant has raised objection against the Enquiry Officer but he was not changed. The objection was raised vide Annexure `E' to his grievance petition which is dated 7-1-1988. In this letter the appellant has only stated, that he had no faith in the Enquiry Officer, Syed Muzaffar Alam therefore some other Officer may be appointed. He had given no reason why he had no faith. His request was rejected vide Annexure 'F', dated 10-1-1988. After rejection of his objection the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. The appellant was admittedly assisted by one Abdul Rehman, an office-bearer of the Union. The appellant has signed each and every page of the enquiry pmceedings. The Enquiry Officer has been examined in the Labour Court.
It is not suggested in the cross-examination of Syed Muzaffar Alam any act of prejudice against the appellant. No question is suggested to him which could show that the Enquiry Officer was in any way biased against or inimical to the respondent. The mere fact that he was an Executive of 'sister-concern' of establishment would not disqualify him because the establishment could have appointed even its own employee to be Enquiry Officer. In the case reported as 1982 PLC 241 Guest, Keen and Nottlefolds (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Arif Hussain this Tribunal had held that where the accused asked for change of Enquiry Officer on the grounds which were not well-founded nor anything indicative of prejudice or bias on part of such officer, mere objection to appointment of such Enquiry Officer in circumstances carried no weight and could be ignored. In that case accused had not participated in the enquiry. In the instant case the appellant participated in the enquiry and in fact impliedly accepted the Enquiry Officer.
8. In the case of United Bank Limited v. Nazim Ali 1983 PLC 579 learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal held that 'mere statement of accused that he had no confidence in the Enquiry Officer without mentioning grounds therefor was not sufficient.' The Enquiry Officer was examined in the Court and there is I nothing on the record to show that he was in any way biased against or had acted unfairly in conducting enquiry. Every opportunity was given to the appellant to cross- examine the witnesses, examining himself and examine defence witnesses, which he did not produce. As already pointed out he had signed each and every page of the enquiry proceedings thereby accepting the authenticity of enquiry proceedings. I, therefore, see no ground to disagree with the learned Labour Court on this issue.
9. It leaves us with the third ground as to whether there was sufficient evidence to prove charges against the appellant. The appellant was charge-sheeted on the complaint of Aftab Alam, Production Supervisor of the respondent. He complained on 24-12-1988, that the appellant who was working on machines stopped the machines time and again and dropped the cap and that when he asked him not to do so he abused mother of Aftab Alam. Aftab Alam was examined before the Enquiry Officer and was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the appellant. In question No, 11 in the cross-examination of Aftab Alam, it was suggested to him that 'MA KA KUS' was not an abuse and he misunderstood it as it was not addressed to him. This suggestion in the cross-examination would indicate, that the appellant did use some abusive language during working hours, but he claimed that he did not address it to Aftab Alam, who had wrongly understood that appellant addressed him as `MA KA KUS'. Aftab Alam is also supported by Hussain Naqi who stated that he found appellant exchanging hot words with Aftab Alam, who was telling appellant why he was closing machine time and again and dropping the cap, on which appellant abused mother of Aftab Alam. Mr. Shahani has contended that no independent witness had been examined by the respondent and no workman in that section had been examined. The standard of assessing evidence in domestic enquiry is different from assessing evidence in criminal case which requires proof of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan relied upon the case of Ahmed Saeed v. Bawany Violin Textile Mills 1969 PLC 815 wherein the then Industrial Tribunal West Pakistan held "the management was not bound to produce its witnesses from- amongst workmen.
Whether witnesses were trustworthy depends upon circumstances of each case". This view was followed by this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR-161 of 1989--S. Pervez Akhtar v. General Tyre and Rubber Company.
10. The appellant has not given any reason as to why Messrs Aftab Alam and Hussain Naqi should have falsely implicated the appellant. His only contention is that he was victimized due to union activities. Admittedly he was not office-bearer of the Union. He has not produced any witness in his defence to show how active he was in the union. In fact he alleged mala fides against the respondents. It is settled law the party who alleges mala fide has strictly to prove mala fide. There is no such proof.
11. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has given valid reasons in the enquiry report for believing the witnesses of the management. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant has been victimised. To use abusive language during working hours would be gross misconduct so also stopping of the machine during working hours in spite of instructions of the Production Supervisor. In my opinion, the charges stand prove against the appellant and his grievance petition has been rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court.
12. I find no merits in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.