' By the present judgment, I shall be disposing of the two appeals captioned above, facts and legal propositions being common.
2. Nasir Mahmood Mughal and Muhammad Zahoor, employees of the Attock Refinery Limited, were involved in two unfortunate incidents; one dated 11-3-1989 and the other dated 10-4-1989. On 11-3- 1989 office-bearers and members of the Workers Union were to hold a public meeting and arrangements therefore were finalised. The Assistant Commissioner, Sadar and A.S.P. Cantonment, with police contingent, reached the premises of the Refinery. The Workers' Union people had a confrontation with the members of the rival union, the Employees' Union, in the afternoon at about 3-45 p.m. These two persons and a few others led a mob and with a crowd they came to the main gate. They were stopped at the gate, by the Security Staff, but they forcibly effected their entry into the interior, and allegedly indulged in riotous and unruly behaviour. Nasir Mughal and Muhammad Zahoor addressed the gathering, by using absolutely abusive language. Provocative slogans were raised, and there came to be created a law and order situation, ugliness of which was averted with the intervention of the police. Such words "were used in abusing the senior officers of the company, members of the management, as also the rival union workers. Allegedly both Nasir Mughal and Muhammad Zahoor were off duty, and they had no business to be present inside, but they were very much present in the interior and they indulged in truly disorderly behaviour.
3. Show-cause notices were issued to ten persons, including Nasir Mughal and Muhammad Zahoor.
These persons, however-c became desperate and decided to pressurise the management, so that the show-cause notices or the charge-sheets could be withdrawn. A procession was even taken out. The participants were carrying placards, inscribed whereupon were different slogans with words The demonstration continued for about 20 to 30 minutes, attracting many outsides to the spot. This constituted another act of misconduct and show-cause notices/charge-sheets were again served on those responsible for the disorderliness. The second incident occurred on 10-4- 1989. Finding the replies to be unsatisfactory, it was decided that enquiries be held against the delinquents.
4. Mr. A.M. Siddiqui, the then Factory Manager, appointed Mr. Adil Khattak and Mr. Zahid Iqbal, as the Enquiry Officers. Nasir Mughal and Muhammad Zahoor both nominated, as associate or assistant, a co-worker, Malik Muhammad Yousaf, General Secretary of the Union. The management produced three witnesses in evidence, they being the complainant, who was the Chief Security Officer, Col. (Retd.) A.H. Yasin, Subedar Munir Hussain, Security Officer Mr. M.A. Zaka, Senior Executive, Labour Relations, who all were cross-examined and were put several questions. They all were eye- witnesses of the two incidents. Nasir Mughal produced three witnesses in defence, Haji Muhammad Rafique, Raja Karim Dad and Amjad Ali. Muhammad Zahoor declined to adduce any evidence in defence and sufficed to say that he was innocent and said that he had nothing to add. In the enquiry, relating to the incident of 10-4-1989, Muhammad Zahoor also examined two witnesses, Muhammad Riaz and Allah Dad, who were cross-examined by the complainant. On conclusion of the enquiries, second show-cause notices were issued to those persons separately, and the copies of the enquiry reports were also enclosed. It will be incorrect to maintain that the reports of enquiry were not supplied to the accused officials. They submitted replies to the notices and were afforded opportunity for personal hearing, which was provided to them by Mr. M.A. Chaudhry, Factory Manager. Both these persons were dismissed from service, as the charges of misconduct stood proved against them. In the Labour Court, Mr. Adil Khatak and Mr. Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, Enquiry Officers appeared as witnesses, to prove the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry reports, Exhs.R-2 and R-5 and Exhs. R-1 and R-6, respectively. It is to be brone in mind that charges of misconduct are belied by the employees, although they do not deny the occurrences and their participation therein, and there appears to be no earthly reason why the witnesses should not be believed. They no doubt belong to the staff, but must be regarded as natural witnesses, as they were present at the site, and the appellants have not been able to bring home any partiality or prejudice on the part of these witnesses against them. Even the Enquiry Officers were not inimically disposed towards Nasir Mahmud and Muhammad Zahoor, who themselves have pointed out that although the incidents did occur on 11-3-1989 and 10-4-1989, a number of other persons were exonerated, and the final action against these two persons took place, about two years after these incidents, which fact actually demonstrated that the management was in no hurry to proceed against them and had not become unnecessarily biased against them. No special circumstances have been shown by these persons to be in existence, which had induced the management to partially proceed against them or had established that the management was particularly annoyed or pitted against these persons. If they were member of the trade union or were office-bearers, they were in no way free to act, in any manner, they liked, but were expected to be all the more law- abiding and disciplined. They, however, displayed scant regard for law and peace, as also for legitimate interests of the establishment. It would be incorrect on the part of any one of these two employees to say that he had been disallowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution or the management. A number of questions Were put to them in cross-examination, with a view to elicit truth.
5. One Naimatullah, Supervisor had appeared as P.W. In the enquiry held by Mr. Muhammad Adil Khatak, with regard to the second incident dated 10-4-1989, but even he had been cross- examined. Honorary Captain Maqsood Hussain Shah was the complainant, as also an eye-witness of the second incident, and had been fully cross-examined by the employees, who were charge- sheeted. Nasir Mughal examined, in defence, Faiz Muhammad Faizi, Muhammad Zahoor and Mahmood Hussain, and they were all cross-examined by the complainant. Personal hearing was afforded by the Factory Manager, Mr. M.A. Chaudhary after due notice to the accused. Exhs. R-1 and 2 are the copies of the enquiry proceedings and Exh. R-3 is the notice for personal hearing issued to Nasir Mughal. The enquiry reports are Exhs.R-5 and R-6, and all these have duly been proved by the enquiry officer by appearing as a witness. I find no reason to disbelieve or discredit the PWs and similarly have not come across any circumstances, showing that these persons had unnecessarily or untruly, been arraigned as accused. The manner in which the management proceeded against them and the action taken against them were entirely bona fide and smacked of no antagonism against the accused and favoritism for the rest. Those who were let off were also members of the union of these persons. Only those persons were punished, who were actually at fault.
6. The mere fact that enquiries were held in the room of Mr. Samad, Personnel Manager, could not be taken exception to and it could not be gathered that he had endeavored to influence the course and result of the enquiries. Mr. Zahid Iqbal's room was considered to be small, and the room of Mr. Samad, therefore, was selected for the purpose. He was in no way inimical to these persons, and like the witnesses, he too was supposed to be independent. The Enquiry Officers were appointed by the competent Authority, and the enquiries were held properly, so that no rights or safeguards guaranteed by law were infringed or trampled. Had the management taken these incidents lightly and taken no action against the wrong-doers, the discipline, as also the law and order position in the factory premises, would have gone to the lowest ebb, and it would have become practically impossible for the other members, as also the workers, to pull on, and carry out their obligations and perform their duties in a normal and peaceful atmosphere.
7. The filthy language used and the disorderly attitude displayed by these persons could in no manner be excused or tolerated. The rival union was functioning, and the members of the management were operating, in exercise of their lawful rights, and they had also certain amount of self-respect, which must not have been permitted to be invaded or violated, in the manner it was being done, by these hooligans. On a dispassionate and critical appreciation of the evidence on record and the proceedings of the enquiries. I have been driven to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officers against the accused employees, and the final action taken against them by the higher officers, were in no way conjectural, motivated or ill-conceived. The whole exercise was truly transparent, as also honest, and attended by bona fides, on the part of the management. I would uphold the impugned decision, rendered by the learned lower Court, on 11-5-1993, and would dismiss both the appeals, although I will leave the parties to bear their respective costs of the litigation.