1. The respondent, Khaliq-uz-Zaman was dismissed from service by his employer, the Crescent Textile Mills, Lyallpur. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and obtained an order of re-instatement with back benefits. The employer has filed this appeal.
2. The charge against employee was that on 16th December 1973, Manzoor Hussain, Production Incharge and Muhammad Sadiq, weaver quarrelled with each other, that the respondent making capital out of this minor incident made a fiery speech before the workers, instigated them to close the weaving section and thereby the said section remained close from 2:30 p.m. To 4-00 p .m. In the charge-sheet it was stated that the employee was guilty of wilful insubordination or disobedience, riotous or disorderly behaviour and striking work or inciting others to strike work.
3. Malik Sarfraz, Personnel Officer of the employer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He recorded evidence of 6 witnesses on behalf of prosecution. Their evidence was that after the incident of quarrelling between Manzoor and Sadiq respondent made a speech inciting other workers to strike work till justice was done to Sadiq, that he led the workers to the office where the worker wanted to manhandle Manzoor and then the Manager pacified the workers by suspending Manzoor and so thereafter the work was restar--ted. According to this evidence the work remained close for 11 hours. In defence one Muhammad Shafi was examined. After close of his statement 77 workers appeared before the Inquiry Officer. They wanted to make statements in defence. The Inquiry Officer did not record their statements but recorded that their evidence was the same as that of Muhammad Shafi. It may be mentioned that Mohammad Shafi had stated that the respondent was not responsible for striking work. His version was that as Sadiq was beaten by Manzoor, therefore, all the workers in the section became enraged, they took hold of corn bars and wanted to beat Manzoor but the respondent pacified them. It was further stated by hire that the respondent brought the Manager to the scene of occurrence and at the assurance of the Manager, the workers began to work again. The Inquiry Officer did not believe the defence version and gave a verdict of guilty against the respondent.
4. In his application before the Junior Labour Court, the respondent pleaded that his removal was due to Trade Union activities and that finding of the Inquiry Officer was erroneous because he did not record the defence witnesses and did not take into consideration the defence version.
5. The learned junior Labour Court was of the opinion that the Inquiry Officer was not independent because he himself had been the workers and as such he should not have been appointed as Inquiry officer in this case. I agree with the finding of the lower Court. The Inquiry Officer admitted while appearing before the lower Court that he was present at the scence of occurrence with the Mills Manager it is provided in Standing Order No. 15 that the employer shall institute independent inquiry before dealing with the charges against a workman. An officer who himself was a witness of the scene of occurrence cannot be termed an independent Inquiry Officer. The Junior Labour Court was, therefore, justified to annul the inquiry.
6. I am however, of the view that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was perverse. It is an admitted fact that Manzoor Hussain, Production Incharge had given beating to a weaver namely Mohammad Sadiq. What happened thereafter is a matter of dispute between the parties. The version of the employer is that the respondent Mr. Khaliq-uz-Zaman delivered a fiery speech and instigated the workers to strike, on the other hand the version of the defence is that the respondent pacified the workers who were prepared to beat Manzoor and had struck work on account of this misbehaviour.
7. The defence version was supported by 78 workers. The sir evidence could not be brushed aside lightly by the Inquiry Officer. My view is that the defence a evidence was not considered properly anti so finding of the Inquiry Officer was perverse. On this account also the dismissal must be held wrongful.
8. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.