1. ORDER The above-named appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 21-6-1973 passed by Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi whereby his application for re-instatement and consequential benefits was dismissed. The case of the petitioner as contained in the petition is that he was in the employment of the respondent-Company and was the President of the registered Trade Union. On 27-3-1973 he was dismissed from service. It Is alleged that the proceedings of the enquiry held against him are illegal inasmuch as he was not given any opportunity of defence and no charge- sheet and 2nd show-cause notice were given to him. It is further alleged that no allegation was proved against him and he was victimized by the Management. The respondent resisted the petition and raised the preliminary objection "that the provisions of section 25-A of the I.R.O, are not attracted in the present case because it is hit by subsection (3) of section 1 of the I.R.O." On factual side the respondent admitted that the appellant was an officebearer of one of the Trade Unions operating in the company. The existence of any industrial dispute between the parties was however denied. The respondent maintained that the petitioner was duly served with a charge- sheet and was given full opportunity of defending himself. Allegation of victimization was also denied and it was contended that the action taken against the appellant is in accordance with law. The Junior Labour Court recorded the evidence ef the parties and by its order now under appeal dismissed the petition for re-instatement. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that he was not given fair opportunity to defend himself and the statements of witnesses were not recorded in his presence. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and the evidence recorded in the Junior Lahour Court.
2. The above contentions are not borne out by the record. The enquiry proceedings show that in the hrst instance, the enquiry proceeded ex parte as the appellant refused to accept the notice of enquiry. Lateron on 1-3-1973 the appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and proceedings were started afresh. The charge- sheet was read over to him. The said charge-sheet Exh. R/A is reproduced below:-- MYou are charge-sheeted for the offence of misconduct under sub* section
(3) (a) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinances, 1968 as amended up-to-date, in that:-- (1) Ever since your holding the office of President, Labour Union, you have almost stopped working and instead started roaming about inside the workshop and offices instigating the workers on one plea or another and are thus committing unfair labour practice (2) It has also been reported by I/C A. T. Bond today (which is your duty place) that you incited and instigated your fellow workers in furtherance to Go Slow (para. 58 I.R.O.) so as to force the Management to put the workers of A.T. Bond on overtime. (3)
3. Today on 13th February 1973 the T. D. on his round found you at 11- 50 hours, reading newspaper at your duty place during the working hours. On being warned you apologized and promised to be careful in future. After about an hour the T.D. again saw you reading the newspaper. When questioned you stood up, came forward, became furious and replied to T.D. as under: "Solmin Saab, you do not perhaps know with whom you are talking; I am the President of Labour Union and can read newspaper even sitting in your office." You are, therefore, called upon to explain your position as to why disciplinary action under relevant rules should not be taken against you. Your reply to this charge-sheet must reach the undersigned by closing hours on 16th February 1973." The enquiry proceedings further show that the statement of Inayat Ullah recorded earlier was read over to him and he was asked to cross- examine him and he cross-examined this witness. Similarly he put questions to Ijaz-ur-Rehman. At this stage it may be mentioned that the appellant is not a truthful witness. In his petition and examination-in chief in the lower Court he stated that he was not given any opportunity to cross- examine the witness and produce his defence and even in cross- examination he stated that Inayat Ullah was not cross-examined by him, but when further cross- examined he admitted that he cross-examined Inayat Ullah and Ijaz-ur-Rehman. He also admitted his signature on the enquiry proceedings. Again in his petition he stated that he was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report but in cross-examination he admitted that a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him. His statement, therefore, cannot be accepted particularly when there is no other evidence on the record to support his contention. In the enquiry proceedings Inayat Ullah and Ijaz-ur-Rehman supported the allegation contained in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, vehemently argued that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the appellant, therefore, his dismissal is unsustainable. To support his contention he drew my attention to the enquiry report in which the Enquiry Officer has stated that since the petitioner is the President of the Labour Union ''his attitude towards his work and also to his superiors is bound to be affected".
4. It was contended that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the appellant and he has been victimized for the sole reason that he is the President of the Labour Union. In my view this statement in the report of enquiry cannot come to the rescue of the appellant because although it is alleged in the petition that enquiry proceedings are illegal, there is no specific allegation of bias against the Enquiry Officer. The proceedings rather show that the Enquiry Officer was very fair. As already stated above in the first instance the appellant had not participated in the Enquiry and the proceedings were conducted on 19-2-1973 but later on when he appeared on 1-3-1973 the proceedings were started afresh to enable him to defend himself. The enquiry proceedings further show that the appellant was givehj opportunity of defence. He named 3 witnesses namely Mohammad Khurshid^4 Ghulam Moeen-ud-Din and Noor Khan. The statement of Ghulam Moeen- ud-Din was recorded. The Enquiry Officer put him a number of questions and recorded his answers.
5. It was contended that the appellant was not allowed to examine this witness and the Enquiry Officer put him only such questions as were favourable to the Management. On the other band the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Enquiry Officer put only such questions to this witness as were suggested by the appellant. Thei enquiry proceedings do not show that the questions put to this witness were]^ inhered ~ Officer bolding a domestic enquiry is not a judicial officer and is not bound by the rules of evidence. Moreover this statement was signed by Chan Pir Shah appellant without aoy protest and this fact supports the view that he had no objection to the manner in which the statement of this witness was recorded. The other two witnesses namely Mohammad Khurshid and Noor Khan stated that on 13-2-1973 they were on leave, therefore, no question was put to these witnesses. The above statement also bears the signatures of the appellant. After going through the record I am of the view that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner and in result thereof the appeal is dismissed.