' This appeal has emerged from the judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar dated 14-10-1997 whereby grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and his dismissal from service was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Cafeteria Supervisor in the respondent Hotel. He was charge-sheeted on 15-3-1995 for using abusive language against Muhammad Hassan Orakzai, Manager Human Resources and other officers and also for attempting to assault him physically when he was checking cafeteria, vide Annexure P.W.1/1. The appellant submitted reply dated 16-3-1995 to the charge-sheet denying the allegations leveled against him vide Exh. P.W.1/2 but the same was not found satisfactory and enquiry was ordered against him. The Enquiry Board was constituted, who after inquiry found the appellant guilty of the charges and recommended disciplinary action be taken against him in accordance with law. He was dismissed from service vide Exh. P.W.1/3. The appellant aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order served grievance notice on the employer which bore no fruitful result. Therefore, he invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court by filing the grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and prayed that the impugned order of dismissal may kindly be declared as illegal, unlawful, void ab initio and without legal authority and that he may be reinstated in service with full back wages and benefits. The respondent contested the petition. The learned Labour Court, after proper trial, dismissed the grievance petition vide judgment dated 14- 10-1997 which is impugned herein.
3. Both the learned counsel for the parties argued in support of their viewpoints and record was gone through with their assistance.
4. The appellant in cross-examination of his statement has stated that he fully participated in enquiry proceedings wherein he was provided assistance of Fazal Rahim and he has signed each page of proceedings. He admitted that he did not raise any objection with regard to the conduct of Enquiry Officer and enquiry proceedings. He also admitted that he neither in his reply to the charge-sheet nor in enquiry proceedings took the stand that he being the office-bearer of the Union was proceeded against for misconduct with mala fide intention. As against the solitary statement of the appellant-respondent produced Muhammad Hassan Orakzai (R.W. 1) and Muhammad Anwar Abbas, Member, Enquiry Board (R.W. 2). R.W. 1 stated that though the appellant was not on duty but was present in the cafeteria on the eventful day, who accused the officers for stealing the cups and attempted to hit him, but on the intervention of Sardar Akbar, he escaped and incident was reported to the General Manager, whereupon the appellant was charge-sheeted and enquiry was initiated. In cross-examination no material question was put to shatter his testimony. R.W. 2 deposed that he conducted the enquiry in a satisfactory manner and on conclusion the appellant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. In cross- examination he admitted that enquiry was conducted by a Board headed by its President with two Members and he was one of the Member and enquiry proceedings were recorded in presence of the appellant. There is nothing in the cross-examination to. suggest that the Enquiry Board did not conduct the proceedings fairly.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out anything on the record to show that the management had any mala fide or animus against the appellant to falsely implicate him for misconduct. The appellant has admitted the incident but in different words but he could not substantiate his stance by any cogent evidence. The appellant has admitted full participation in enquiry and has not complained about unfairness and impartiality of the Enquiry Board, and as such, dismissal order was passed by the management after a fair and impartial enquiry. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Raja Javed Akhtar v. Executive Vice-President (United Bank Ltd.. 1978 SCM R 212) held that where the employee participates in the enquiry proceedings that enquiry cannot be said to be against natural justice. The relevant para. of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "According to Mr. Hague, the enquiry conducted by the second respondent's Enquiry Officer was in gross-violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, it was illegal and void. But the High Court rejected this plea on two grounds. The first was that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry by cross-examination the second respondent's witness and by examining himself. The second ground was that the petitioner had signed a statement that he had no further evidence to give. Now as it was for the petitioner to decide whether he had any evidence to produce. The statement signed by him that he did not wish to produce evidence was prima facie fatal to learned counsel's submissions, therefore, Mr. Hague attempted to get round the concession thus made by the petitioner by invoking the rules of natural justice. But he could not explain how the rules of natural justice had been violated, because it was not his case that the petitioner had not signed the statement that he did not wish to produce evidence. Nor did learned counsel contend that the petitioner had signed this statement under duress. Indeed such a plea would have been ridiculous and it is significant that although the Enquiry Officer was examined in the Junior Labour Court, learned counsel did not even refer us to this witness's evidence. Now it was in these circumstances, that the High Court held that the enquiry conducted by the second respondent's Enquiry Officer was in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, because it had been held in a fair and reasonable manner. And no exception whatever can be taken to this finding. Nor is learned counsel's attempt to invoke the rules of natural justice of any assistance to the petitioner's case, the more so, as even at this stage the petitioner cannot explain why he had illegally kept with himself for more than six months' monies belonging to a bank namely the second respondent. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner did not produce evidence before the Enquiry Officer because there was no way by which he could explain his illegal retention of monies which belonged to the second respondent."
The perusal of the enquiry proceedings would show that appellant was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and was also provided assistance of Fazal Rahim to help him in enquiry proceedings. The enquiry was conducted by a Board of three persons, therefore, the question of its being biased does not arise nor it can now be raised at that stage as it was not agitated so by the appellant before the Board during the course of enquiry. The appellant was charge-sheeted with the allegation of misbehavior and manhandling of his superior and was, given a fair Chance of defence in enquiry and the trial where he appeared as a witness and was allowed to cross- examine the witness appeared against him and the allegations were proved against him.
' In view of the above, the dismissal order passed by the management and upheld by the learned Labour Court after fair enquiry and trial was based on proper appreciation of evidence on the record, hence, it warrants no interference. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.