DECISION ' This appeal from the order of the learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi arises in the following circumstances:-
2. It is alleged that there were two Unions in the respondent company and there was bad blood between the two of them. There were elections and a Referendum was to follow. The appellant who was a staunch member of the Workers Union is stated to have been run down maliciously at the instance of the rival party. She was charge-sheeted on the allegations that on the 5th and 6th of June, 1989, during the break between 10 and 10.15 a.m. She had addressed the workers inciting them to go slow in the work and had also abused the Director of the company and the staff members. An enquiry was held and there was an order of dismissal.
3. The appellant had made a representation to the employers but was not replied to. Later a grievance petition was filed before the learned Labour Court.
4. The respondents in their reply statement denied the allegations and maintained that the order of dismissal was after a fair and impartial enquiry.
' The learned Presiding Officer agreed with the version of the employers and the petition was dismissed.
5. It has to be seen that the witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry were not produced at the trial. However, that will not be open to any exception as it is not incumbent on the employer to produce them before the Labour Court. However, even the officer who had conducted the enquiry was not produced before the Labour Court and only the Labour Officer Mr. Samar Zaidi was examined. He had no personal knowledge of the affairs.
6. It is to be seen that right from the beginning the case of the appellant was that she and more than a dozen members of her Union had been charge-. Sheeted at the instance of the rival party, though ultimately the domestic enquiry was held only against 2 of them. There was also objection taken in the enquiry that the officer appointed could not be fair in his dealings. In the circumstances, it was necessary to produce the enquiry officer before the Labour Court so that he could rebut the allegations put forward by the appellant and prove that the proceedings before him were in accordance with law and that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to defend herself. This was the view taken in the case of Pakistan Railways v. Syed Tarawat Hussain reported in 1980 PLC 24.
7. Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that if the employers were satisfied with the report submitted by the Enquiry 9 Officer and acted thereon, due weight has to be given to their findings. I agree that due weight has to be given to the findings, but, there is nothing like a magic wand about the enquiry and the Labour Courts are there as a double-check to see that the employees are not left to the tender mercy of the employers. It is an essential part of the function of the Labour Court to see whether the facts and the circumstances of the case will pass muster both on facts as well as law. This was the view taken in the case of Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqoob etc., reported in PLD 1978 SC 27.
8. I am afraid I cannot agree with the findings of the Court below. The dismissal is not free from suspicion. I will, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with full back benefits.