This judgment shall dispose of three appeals bearing Nos. SGA--160/92-Punjab, SGA-161/92-Punjab and SGA-162/92-Punjab which, though preferred by three different persons, involve similar questions of facts and law.
2. These appeals are directed against indentical judgments of the Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha dated 22nd of April, 1992, whereby the three grievance petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.
3. Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Usman Bhatti and Arshad-ul-Hassan, appellants were the employees of the Habib Jute Mills Limited, Khushab. They were respectively the Vice-President, Vice-Chairman and President of the Pak Mazdoor Union, the C.BA. Trade union of the Mills. On 21st of May, 1988 they were separately served with charge-sheet on the allegations that on 11th of May, 1988 at about 2- 00 p.m. They delivered speeches at the entrance gate of workers inciting the workers of `B' shift to go on strike, prevented them from entering the Mills and forcibly removed from inside the Mills those workers who had gone there to perform their duties, on the plea that the Mills would not work till the demand of the workers regarding provision of atta and pulses at the subsidized rates at the fair price shop was not acceded to. The appellants in their replies controverted the above allegations. According to them, since the matter with regard to the above incident was sub judice before the N.I.R.C., `no departmental proceedings could be initiated against them. However, departmental inquiry ensued against the appellants. The appellants did not participate in the inquiry in spite of notices. The Inquiry Officer after the ex parte inquiry held the appellants guilty and submitted his report accordingly. Second show-cause notices were issued to the appellants but they refused to receive- the same. In these circumstances, the appellants were dismissed from service with effect from 6th of August, 1988. After service of grievance notices on 27th of October, 1988, they filed grievance petitions on 6th of December, 1988 assailing their dismissal and praying for their reinstatement in service with back benefits. They averred that the allegations levelled against them in the charge-sheet were incorrect and the orders of their dismissal were illegal and void.
4. The respondent in his written replies contested the grievance petitions. He maintained that the allegations against the appellants were correct and that they had been validly dismissed from service after proper inquiry.
5. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. After appraising the evidence, the learned Labour Court concluded that the charge of misconduct stood fully proved against the appellants and their dismissal was unassailable. Accordingly, their grievance petitions were dismissed by the impugned decisions.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On a perusal of the record, it transpires that on 21st of May, 1988 a charge , sheet (Exh.P-1) was drawn against Zafar Iqbal, appellant on the allegations that on 11th of May, 1988 at about 2-00 p.m. He alongwith other office- bearers of Pak Mazdoor Union (C.BA.) delivered provocative speeches before the workers of `B' shift at the entry gate inciting them that till their demand for provision of commodities at subsidized rates at the fair price shop was not accepted, they should go on strike and not only prevented them from entering the Mills but also forcibly brought out those who had gone inside to do their work. According to the charge-sheet, the above act of the appellant amounted to misconduct, as provided in Standing Order 15(3)(k) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. An attempt was made to serve the charge-sheet on the appellant on 22nd of May, 1988 but he refused to receive it. However, he subsequently received the same on 4th-of June, 1988. On 5th June, 1988 he submitted his reply (Exh.P.2) denying the allegations. Qazi Muhammad Ahmad, the then Senior Assistant in the Mills, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was fixed before him on 19th of June, 1988 at 1-00 p.m. A notice of the inquiry (Exh.R.5) was sent to the appellant on 15th of June, 1988. According to the report (Exh.R.5/1) of one Muhammad Ashraf, the appellant refused to receive this notice on 16th of June, 1988. The Inquiry Officer himself also on 19th of June, 1988; issued to the appellant a notice of the inquiry for 22nd of June, 1988. According to Muhammad Zamurrud, Security Head Guard, the appellant refused to receive this notice also. The appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 22nd of June, 1988. Therefore, an ex parte inquiry was held. The statements of the officials before whom the appellant had refused to receive the notices of the inquiry and those in whose presence the appellant had made objectionable speeches were recorded. The inquiry proceedings are Exh.R.12.
On basis of this inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report (Exh.R.13) holding the appellant guilty of the charge. A second show-cause notice (Exh.R.14) was issued to the appellant on 11th of July, 1988 for his personal hearing on 18th of July, 1988. The appellant refused to receive this notice also on 14th of July, 1988 vide report (Exh.R.14/1). On 14th of July, 1988 the second show-cause notice was sent to him again by registered post for personal hearing on 21st of July, 1988. This notice was received back undelivered with a report (Exh.R.17) that the appellant was not available at his residence. Ultimately, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 6th of August, 1988 vide dismissal order dated 6th of August, 1988 (Exh.R.19). The appellant refused to receive this order too. It was, therefore, displayed on the notice board and a copy was sent to him by registered A.D.
Post. The registered envelope (Exh.R.21) was received back undelivered with a report that the appellant was not present at his house. The oral evidence of the appellant comprised his testimony as P.W.2 and that of an employee of the Mills namely, Ghulam Hussain as P.W.1. While in rebuttal, the respondent also examined two witnesses namely, War Abbas (R.W.1), an Assistant Director of the Labour Department and Qazi Muhammad Ahmad (R.W.2) who held the inquiry. This evidence was scrutinised in detail by the learned Labour Court which concluded that the charge of misconduct levelled against the appellant was proved against him and his dismissal was quite legal.
7. Similar evidence was produced against the other two appellants and the same findings were recorded against them also.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments has not been able to point out any fact which could recoil on the propriety of the conclusions drawn by the learned Labour Court. He has argued that the officials in whose presence the appellants had refused to receive the notices of the inquiry should have been examined in the Labour Court and the omission to do so creates a formidable lacuna in the evidence of the respondent. The statements of these officials were recorded by the Inquiry Officer and on the basis of their evidence, he proceeded with the inquiry ex parte. Therefore, it was not incumbent on the respondent to examine them again in the Labour Court. It is further contended that since the notice of the inquiry for 22nd of June, 1988 (Exh.R.11) was sought to be served on the appellant on the same date, it violated the principles of natural justice as the time was very short. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Project Director, Karkhana Aalat-e- Zaree v. Abdul Aziz (1992 PLC 1) decided by my learned predecessor on 24th of July, 1991. This plea is not available to the appellants as they had evaded service of the previous notice. It is also pointed out that m the ex parte inquiry no worker was examined by the management to prove that the appellants had made objectionable speeches or prevented the workers from doing their work.
Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this fact does not have any repercussion as the management was not bound to produce in the inquiry its witnesses from amongst the workers.
He has cited Ahmad Saeed v. Messrs Bawany Violin Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi (1969 PLC 815) which fully supports him. In the inquiry the management examined Muhammad Iqbal Sajid, Admn. And Personnel Officer, Zahid Mahmood Senior Shift Incharge, Muhammad Hayat, Security Officer, Ijaz Hussain, Quality Control and Fateh Khan, Security Guard who substantiated the allegations against the appellants. I have gone through their statements. Their statements do not smack of any contrivance. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of War Abbas, Assistant Director who was examined before the Labour Court as R.W.1. He in his cross- examination, admitted that the appellants had cooperated in the termination of the strike and that the plea of the appellants before him was that the workers had themselves gone on strike. In his earlier cross-examination, however, he had stated that since the strike was called off by the appellants, they would have made a call for the same. Therefore, his statement read as a whole does not unequivocally support the appellants. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court against the appellants are unexceptionable.
9. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.