DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. III, Karachi dismissing the petition filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The facts forming the background of this case, in brief, are as follows:-
2. The petitioner was working as a Junior Clerk with the respondents. He was served with a charge- sheet on the ground that he had given un-authorised water connection to some people in the S.I.T.E. Area on receiving illegal gratification. He had replied to the same mentioning therein that he had been maliciously run down at the instance of the Chief Accountant by the name of Mansoor Ahmed. The said reply was found unsatisfactory and there was an order for domestic enquiry wherein a number of witnesses were examined. On the submission of the enquiry report the petitioner came to be removed from service on 18-2-1972.
3. The petitioner had preferred a Departmental Appeal before the Board of Directors which also came to be turned down, with the result that he sent a grievance notice which was followed up by a grievance petition before the Labour Court.
4. The respondents in their written reply contended that the grievance notice was barred by time. It yeas also averred that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner was a Government employee. The other allegations also came to be denied.
5. The petitioner, apart from himself, examined Abdur Rashecd, a peon of the SITE Office while Wali Muhammad, the Office Superintendent and Muhammad Bux Arejo, the Administrative Officer, who had conducted the enquiry, were examined on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court found that the appeal was in time, but the domestic enquiry, he faced was fair and impartial and the evidence against him was conclusive. It, therefore, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
7. The matter had remained pending for long and even on the last date a request for adjournment was made by Mr. Farooqi, Junior of Mr. Mehmood Habibullah. I had declined because there were too many adjournments earlier as well.
8. A contention had been raised before the Labour Court that as the petitioner had remained under suspension throughout the enquiry proceedings, the same stood vitiated. Reference had been made to provision of paragraph 5 of Standing Order 15, according to which a worker cannot remain under suspension for a period exceeding four days at a time, and "in any case it shall not exceed four weeks". This contention had been examined in the case of Muhammad Farooq and another v.
Sattar Industries and Labour Court No.IV, Karachi as reported in 1981 PLC 752v and had been repelled by the High Court. I will, therefore, advert to the merits of the case.
9. At the enquiry as many as nine witnesses had been examined including the complainant, and they had fully implicated the appellant. It was alleged that a two inches diameter connection was provided by the appellant and his accomplice whom they named against the payment of Rs.3,000 as illegal gratification.
10. The appellant in his own cross-examination has admitted that he had been served with the enquiry notice, and that all the leaves of the enquiry proceedings containing the statement of the witnesses had been duly signed by him. He added that these witnesses had also been cross- examined by him and he had also made his own statement in his own handwriting and had not produced any defence witnesses. He went on to say that a show-cause notice had been served which, had been replied to by him. He also admitted that he had been supplied with the copy of the enquiry proceeding and was given a personal hearing by the Managing Director.
11. Nothing worthwhile could be elicited from the two witnesses examined before the Labour Court namely Wali Muhammad, Office Superintendent and Muhammad Bux Arejo, the Enquiry Officer. It is true that a stereo typed question was put to the effect that the enquiry had been conducted with partiality, but nothing specific was suggested. A look at what he had himself to say in the cross- examination, will clearly show that it was just a routine question without any substance. Nor any construction was placed on the alleged grudge Mansoor Ahmed, the Chief Accountant had against the appellant. Even the witness produced by the appellant himself, namely Abdur Rasheed, who was an office-bearer of the SITE Workers Union had not a word to say about the case or any motive from any quarter for the false implication of the appellant in the case.
12. Manifestly there was no question that the enquiry conducted against him was unfair or prejudiced. The proceedings took place while he was posted at Noori Abad. Nor had the complainant Muhammad Ikhlas and his associates any reasons to run him down maliciously. The circumstances in short are totally free of any such suspicion.
13. I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not open to any exception. I will, therefore, affirm the same and dismiss the appeal.