These are 3 Appeals under section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, against an order of the West Pakistan industrial Court dated April 30, 1968, on an application under section 30(2) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. The facts giving rise to the Appeal shortly put are these.
The appellants were employed by the respondent---Com--pany which carries on the business of manufacturing silk products. The appellants are the Officers of the Workers Union. At the time when they were charge-sheeted an Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1967 was pending before the Industrial Court. They were charge-sheeted for an incident which took place on 30th June 1967 for illegally striking work and inciting other workers and also for displaying riotous and disorderly behaviour.
The charge-sheet falls under Order 13 (3), (h) and (k) of the Industrial and Commercial Employ-- ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960. The charge-sheets were issued to all the appellants individually, on 30th June, 1967. The appellants were given a notice on 6th July 1967 stating that an enquiry would be held. The Enquiry was held on 10th July 1967. The Enquiry Officer found the appellants to ' be guilty of illegal strike and inciting others to go on strike.
3. As the appellants were Officers of the Union, the Management made an application under section 30 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, before the Industrial Court. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court granted the requisite permission on 30th April 1968. He came to the conclusion that the Enquiry was fair, impartial and in accor--dance with the principle of natural justice.
4. Mr. Obaidur Rehman, the learned Representative for the appellant put 5 points before me, which I propose to dispose of separately.
5. The learned Advocate submitted in the first place that joint enquiry against the appellants was illegal and that it had prejudiced the appellants. There is no force in this submission. The learned Advocate has failed to point out as to how the appellants have been prejudiced by joint enquiry.
They have been allowed to produce their defence witness separately and to cross-examine the witnesses for the Manage--ment. The charges against the appellants were the same and the Enquiry Officer thought it convenient to hold a joint enquiry. This should have been helpful to the appellants a they could jointly chalk out a plan for their defence and put separate questions in cross-examinations of the witnesses for the Management. Moreover it appears that this plea is the result of an after-thought. That this is so would appear from a question put by the Industrial Court to the Enquiry Officer as to whether he had jointly tried the appellants. The appellants desire to take advantage of the Court questions. They did not raise this plea in their written statement before the Industrial Court. It was only in the arguments before the Industrial Court as a result of the question put by the Court that they contended that the joint enquiry was illegal. The appellants raised no objection before the domestic enquiry that they wanted that they should be separately tried. It seems to me that it suited the appellants before the Industrial Court that the trial should be joint.
Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani the learned Representative for the respondent relied on 3 authorities namely (1962) 1 L L J 527, (1965) 2 L L J 583, (1:963) 1 L L J 796, in support of his contention that where the objection to jurisdiction was not taken earlier the party concerned could not be allowed to take it at a later stage when the decision had gone against it. There is much force in this submission.
This view is supported by the latest decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 1969 SCMR 96, it was held in that case "That a person acquiescing and participating before a Tribunal cannot subsequently challenge order to be without jurisdiction because it went against him".
6. It was in the next place contended that the defence witnesses of Mr, Makki were not examined in his presence. For some reason or the other the Enquiry Officer disallowed Mr. Makki to be present when his witnesses were examined. It may be mentioned that other appellants were present while their defence witnesses were being examined. I have gone through the statement of Muhammad Younus Khan, the witness for Mr. Makki. His statement is in support of the statement of Mr. Makki. Mr. Obaid-ur-Rehman was unable to point out to me as to what further question may hove been put to the witness, the answer of which might have improved the case of Mr. Makki, It is noteworthy that before the Industrial Court Mr. Makki did not allege in his written statement filed before him that he had been prejudiced by his absence at the time Muhammad Younus was being examined. I would hold that the absence of Mr. Makki at the time when Younus was examined did not in any way prejudice this case.
7. In the third place it was contended that Mr. Motiwala Enquity Officer had issued a notice that the strike was illegal and therefore he was incompetent to be an Enquiry Officer. There is no force in this contention. Mr. Motiwala as a Labour Officer of the Management bad posted a notice on the Notice Board requesting the workers to start the work as the strike was illegal. He cannot be said to have in any way pre--judiced by this act. Moreover the point that he was incompe--tent to hold the enquiry was not taken before him.
8. In the fourth place it was contended that there is nothing on record to show who appointed Motiwala as Enquiry Officer. In the first place this point should have been taken before the Enquiry Officer himself, but this was not done. In the second place in the cross-examination Mr. Motiwala has stated that the Director had appointed him as Enquiry Officer.
9. Lastly it was contended that there are interpolation in the statements appearing in the record of the Industrial Court at pages 31, 32 and 43. I have gone through these statements which are said to be interpolated. In the first place the Enquiry Officer who had been examined in the Industrial Court should have been asked to explain if he had made any interpolation in the statements of the witnesses. No such question was gut_ to the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Mabmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative for the respondent relied on (1962) 1 L L J 559, in support of his contention that in the absence of any question to the Enquiry Officer, this contention should not be taken notice of. The authority cited supports the contention of Mr. Mahmood-A. Ghani. It is also important to note that the appellants did not take this point in the written statements that they filed before the Industrial Court. At any rate, the Enquiry Report would disclose that the Enquiry Officer has not taken any advantage of the alleged interpolation. No other point was raised before me.
The Appeals are dismissed.