DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labor Court No.IV at Karachi by which the petition for reinstatement under section 25-A of the IRO was allowed with back benefits. The circumstances forming he background of the case in a nutshell are as follows:-- The petitioner was working in the Testing Department of the respondents since 1-3-1986. On 1-2- 1990 he had applied for one month leave which had been granted. He had asked for extension of leave up to the 31st of March and the respondent by their letter dated 15-3-1990 had agreed to consider the application on the submission of a Medical Certificate. He had resumed his work on 1- 4-1990, but on 22-4-1990 was served with a charge-sheet. He had replied to the same along with a Certificate. It is alleged that on the submission of the enquiry report 5e came to be dismissed on 26-5-1990.
2. He had sent a grievance notice on 19-8-1990. But the same came to be returned. The notice was repeated on 22-9-1990 with the same results and it was in the third attempt dated 7-10-1990 that the delivery could be made. As there were no satisfaction to be obtained from the respondents, the petitioner filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. In the Written Reply the petition came to be resisted inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time.
4. The petitioner was his own witness aid Abdul Razzaq Awan, Manager Administration appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Labour Court found that the petition was barred by time and on that sole ground dismissed the petition.
6. An appeal was brought before this Tribunal against this order, and there was further contention raised that even the appeal was barred by time. The appeal came to be allowed by my order- dated 4-6-1992 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for disposal on merit.
7. As the evidence was already on the record earlier and there was no request for any further evidence, the parties were heard and the petition was allowed with full back benefits culminating in this appeal.
8. It is true that the respondent did not produce the Medical Certificate at the time of the resumption of his duties but he .Had submitted it along with the explanation to the charge-sheet.
But the fact remains that the record of the enquiry proceedings or even the report have not been placed on the record. We therefore do not know, why the certificate was not accepted. 'There were allegations made by the respondent in his affidavit against the Inquiry Officer and the conduct of the inquiry. Paragraph 10 thereof reads as under:-- "I say that thereater a so-called enquiry was held wherein an Enquiry Officer who was already biased and prejudiced was detailed who totally ignored me and overlooked the contention of mine and rather helped in strengthening and consolidating the prosecution case. The Enquiry Officer did not record all was stated by me but substituted the expressions of prosecution which was not said or even uttered by them."
9. There were similar allegations in the petition, but there was not a single question challenging it in the cross-examination. Even the Enquiry Officer was never produced. In view of the fact that there were allegations against him, his evidence was necessary. Abdul Razzaq Awan had not a word to say as to what had happened to the report or the enquiry papers, or why the Enquiry Officer whose came even has not been disclosed could not be produced.
10. Non-production of the enquiry papers is a fatal flaw as it is incumbent upon the Labour Court to see as to how it was conducted and whether there was material enough before the Enquiry Officer to reach that conclusion. There is enough case-law for the proposition. (See Crescent Jute Products v. Muhammad Yaqub PLD 1978 SC 207.
11. In the circumstances I will affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.