This is a petition under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969. This employer, Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala has sought permission to dismiss its employee Munir Ahmed on the charge that he instigated the other workers to strike in contravention of the provisions of law.
2. The facts of the case are these. Eid-ul-Fitr fell in the month of October, 1974. The festival is celebrated subject to the appearance of the Moon. The declared holidays of Eid-ul-Fitr in the Calendar were 17th and 18th of October, 1974. 'the Management of the Crescent Jute Products Limited declared three holidays from 16th to 18th October, 1974. During these holidays the Government declared that the holidays for Eid would be 17th to 19th October, 1974. This declaration was made in the Newspaper as well as on the Radio. The Management did not declare 19th as a holiday for Eid. On 19-10-74 Dost Muhammad, Shift Incharge of Security Staff made a report to the effect that Munir Ahmed had instigated the workers to strike and as such the workers did not enter into the shift commencing at 2-00 p.m. He further stated that the Labour Officer Mr. Wasim Ahmed Farooqi and Senior Officer Mr. Amin Nawaz came at the spot and told the workers that it was not a holiday but Munir Ahmed came forward and told the workers that it was a holiday. The final result was that the workers went to their houses without joining duty. On this report Munir Ahmed was charge-sheeted that he had incited the workers to strike work. In reply to this charge-sheet the respondent pleaded not guilty. His explanation was that the charge was false and was levelled against him for victimisation due to Union activities. The explanation was not found satisfactory and Mr. Rafique Ahmed Khan, Assistant Labour Officer was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. On 28- 12-74 he recorded the statement of Dost Muhammad. The evidence of this witness was that Munir Ahmed as well as Manzoor incited the workers at 2-00 p. m. not to go into the Mills because it was a holiday and so the workers went back to their houses. No chance was given to the respondent to cross-examine this witness. Further proceed--ings were taken on 3-2-1975. The evidence of Mahboob Sultan, Security Sergeant, was recorded on that day. He said that the respondent who was not known to him was inciting the workers not to go on duty. According to him Manzoor Hussain joined him later. He said that he came to know afterward that the respondent was the person who was inciting the workers not to go on duty. 1 his witness was cross-examined by the respondent at length. On the same date an application was given by the respondent to the effect that be bad committed a mistake, that it was done at the instance of Syed Ashiq Hussain, General Secretary and he could be pardoned for this mistake and he should be allowed to resume duty. On 9-2-75, the respondent was examined by the Inquiry Officer. In this statement he said that he had stopped the workers to come to the Mills at the instance of Ashiq Hussain and bad told the workers that it was a holiday. On the basis of evidence of Dost Muhammad and Mahboob Sultan, read with the confession of the respondent, a verdict of guilty was given by the Inquiry Officer, another show- cause notice was given to the respondent and after obtaining his explanation the matter was referred to this Court to seek permission for the dismissal of the respondent.
3. The respondent pleaded not guilty while he was examined in this Court. He admitted that his signatures were obtained on the application dated 3-2-1975 and about his statement dated 9-2- 75 be said that these signatures were obtained by fraudulent means. According to him he was given a solemn promise by the Inquiry Officer that the inquiry would be filed and so he signed these documents.
4. The respondent is an office-bearer of the Union. Ordinarily, he could not make a confessional statement. On 5-2-75 he had clearly cross---examined the witness on the line that he was not present at 2-00 p. m., at the gate. The witness had admitted that he did not know the respondent and on further questioning he said that after a short time he had come to know from the other workers that the person who had incited the other workers was the respondent. He was further asked to disclose the names of those workers who had informed him about the name of the respondent. The witness could not mention the name of any other workers. His explanation was that he was a new recruit and so he did not know the names of the workers. Whatever the case may be it is clear that the respondent bad the intention to contest the inquiry. There appears no reason as to make a confession. There is only one possibility. The respondent must have been given a promise that the inquiry would be dropped if he made a confession. Without such a promise there was no chance to get a confession from the respondent. The same position holds good for the statement recorded on 9-2-1975. In my considered view the confessional statement should not be taken into consideration.
5. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the respondent guilty for the charge levelled against him. One witness against him is Dost Muhammad but no cross- examination was made on him. The evidence of a witness cannot be used against an accused where the witness has not been allowed to be cross-examined. The other witness is Mahboob Sultan. He did not know the respondent. He could not be sure if the respondent was the person who was inciting the others to strike work. Admittedly, about two hundred persons bad gathered and the possibility was as that they must have been conversing with each other on the question as to whether they should go to work or whether they should observe a holiday in the circumstances that the Government had declared the same date as holiday. The evidence can the record does not prove a clear case against the respondent. Furthermore, no chance has been given to the respondent to produce any evidence in defence.
6. In the first instance the evidence procured by Management does not appear worthy of credit and in the second instance story of the Management is belied in toto, it cannot be said that the respondent had any mala fide intention to incite the workers to go on strike. He may have reasonably thought and believed that workers had a right to observe a holiday, on 19-10-1974 as it had been declared a holiday by the Government.
7. I am satisfied that no permission can be granted to the Management to dismiss the respondent on the basis of proceedings taken against him. The application is, therefore, rejected.