DECISION ' These are two appeals against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatements of the two respondents, viz. Khursheed Ahmed and Sharifuddin.
2. The respondents were in the permanent employment of the appellant. There was some incident on 12th April, 1977 in respect of some quarrel having been taken place between different workers including the respondents. Since the respondents were considered to be responsible for the quarrel they were charge sheeted on 13th April, 1977. They were purported to have submitted their replies which were found unsatisfactory and, therefore, Mr. Kabiruddin, Labour Officer was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The respondents were directed to appear before him on 14th April, 1977 at 9-00 a. m.
It is the case of the Management that inquiry was held from 14th April, 1977 to 25th April, 1977. The evidence of various witnesses was recorded by the Inquiry Officer. On the conclusion of the inquiry, he found the respondents guilty of the charge and made the report on the same date. After second show-cause notice the respondents were dismissed from service. They approached the Labour Court after service of grievance notice, alleging that no inquiry was held and they were victimised.
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that there was truth in the allegation made by the respondents that no inquiry was held and on the basis of this view, he set aside the orders of dismissal and ordered re-instatement of the respondents with full back benefits. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals had been filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for Sharfuddin while Khurshid Ahmad was absent. I have also gone through the evidence of the witnesses examined in the inquiry in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer and I am of the view that the learned Presiding Officer was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that no inquiry was held. It was a case of the Management that the inquiry lasted from 14th to 15th, but the proceedings show that for the first time the witnesses were examined on 19th. The diary of the proceedings was not maintained and it is not understood what happened from 14th to 18th. Even the Inquiry Officer was not examined in the Labour Court to furnish an explanation as to the steps which he had taken during that 4 inquiry.
His report shows that the respondents had tried to avoid the inquiry and, therefore, the inquiry could not be conducted prior to 19th April, 1977. But this allegation does not find support from the evidence of the witnesses. They made contradictory statements and their evidence was rightly disbelieved by the learned Presiding Officer.
5. The learned Presiding Officer had given elaborate and cogent reasons and I fully agree with him.
6. In the result the appeals are dismissed. It is, however, open to the appellant to hold fresh inquiry against the respondents by appointing another Inquiry Officer and take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law.