The respondent, Ghulam Muhammad was an employee of Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala. He was dismissed from service on 11-6-74. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Junior Labour Court, Lyallpur. He was ordered to be re-instated with back benefits. Aggrieved by this order the employer has filed this appeal.
2. One Nazir Ahmed Line Sardar in the establishment made a report to the effect that on 7-10-73 at 9-30 p. m. The respondent got many machines of spinning light closed down, thereafter, he came to his section and asked him to close machines No. 7 to 18 but he refused and so the respondent with the help of Muhammad Hussain gave a beating to him. In brief, the report contained the following allegations against the respondent:---
(1) that the respondent was responsible for closing down many machines in spinning light section ;
(2) that the respondent ordered Nazir Ahmed to close down machines Nos. 7 to 18 but Nazir Ahmed refused to do so;
(3) that the respondent manhandled Nazir Ahmed with one Muhammad Hussain.
3. On the above report, the respondent was charge-sheeted under Standing Order No. 15(3) (h) and (k). Obviously, the allegations against him were that he was guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour during the working hours at the establishment and striking work or inciting others to strike in con--travention of the provisions of law. The inquiry was entrusted one after the other to three different officers. The third officer was Muhammad Umar. He recorded the evidence of five witnesses. He was of the opinion that the charge of riotous or disorderly behaviour was not proved.
He found him guilty on the charge of striking work. After giving a show-cause notice the respondent was removed from service
4. The junior Labour Court was of the view that the inquiry was not conducted properly and fairly and that the petitioner was dismissed on account of his Trade Union activities.
5. The report of the Inquiry Officer and the evidence recorded by him has been placed on record.
Nazir Ahmed was the complainant. He stated before the Inquiry Officer that the respondent came Jo him and told him to close the machines but he refused to do so. The evidence of five other witnesses was also recorded by the Inquiry Officer, This evidence did not support the fact that the respondent had told. Nazir Ahmed to close the machines. Their evidence was that there was some quarrel between the respondent and Nazir Ahmed, that they intervened and both of them were pacified. They did not throw any light about the nature of quarrel.
6. The Inquiry Officer had found that the respondent eves not guilty of any riotous or disorderly behaviour. His finding was that the respondent was guilty of striking work. Five of the witnesses examined by him did not utter a single word about the strike. They did not say that the respondent had told Nazir Ahmed to close any machine. It was only Nazir Ahmed who stated that Ghulam Mohd had told him to close machines acid that he refused to obey his order and did not close any machines. Ordinarily, the Inquiry Officer should not have believed him. He on the other hand relied on the statement of the respondent. His view was that Ghulam Muhammad himself stated that he had closed one machine at the call of Muhammad Siddique because the bobbin was jumping and so there was imminent danger of either machine being damaged or the spindle being broken, and so in view of this admission the respondent should be held guilty of striking work.
7. The finding of the Inquiry Officer is wholly perverse and is not based on any evidence. The prosecution must produce evidence that the respondent was guilty. If the prosecution failed to produce any evidence against him a conviction cannot be based on any defence version. If there was no evidence against the respondent there was no way out for the Inquiry Officer to give a verdict of "not guilty". On this ground the order of dismissal must be annulled.
8. I agree with the learned lower Court that the respondent was dismissed on account of his Union activities. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of this inquiry a settlement was arrived at between the Union and the employer. One of the terips of the settlement was that a lenient view would be taken in all those cases where workers were facing inquiries. It is apparent that the intention was that minor penalty would be levied if any worker was found guilty. In the present case the major penalty of dismissal was imposed on the worker. It was against the spirit of tae settlement and so the only conclusion which can be drawn in this case is that the action taken against the respondent was male fide and he was dismissed from service on account of Union activities. The order, passed by the lower Court is unassailable.
9. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.