1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner was the cashier ors branch of a United Bank (the second respondent in this petition fort leave) in May 1974.
2. The petitioner admits that he absented himself from duty without leave from 23rd May 1974 to 14th December 1974. He also admits that he had through this long period of more than six months kept with him a substantial sum of money belonging to the second respondent's customers. The second respondent, therefore, charge-sheeted the petitioner and appointed an Enquiry Officer to bold an enquiry against the petitioner's misconduct. The second respondent examined its Branch Manager who was cross---examined by the petitioner. The petitioner also gave evidence and was cross- examined in tarsi by the second respondent. The petitioner then admits that he stated in writing that he did not wish to produce any further evidence, therefore we would pause to explain here that the petitioner's explanation of his absence from duty between May and December, 1974 was that he had learnt that his uncle had fallen ill and had, therefore, asked for leave but as leave was refused, he had abandoned his duties temporarily. Assuming only for the sake of argument that this explanation was a satisfactory explanation of the petitioner's absence without leave, the petitioner did not even attempt to explain why he had for a long period retained with him money belonging to the second respondent and even at this stage Mr. Haque could not explain why the petitioner did not for example, remit to the second respondent by a money order the amount be bad Illegally detained with him. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and recommended his dismissal. The petitioner was then served with the second show-cause notice and as he was dismissed, he filed an application against the second respondent in the Junior Labour Court for his re-instate--ment under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (herein--after called the said Ordinance). His contention in this application was that be bad not been given a proper opportunity to produce evidence but the Junior Labour Court examined the second respondent's Enquiry Officer who had conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of this and other evidence, it dismissed the petitioner's application.
3. The petitioner challenged this order in an appeal before the Second Punjab Labour Court. This Court observed; "Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of the appellant. It is in the form of questions and answers. No question was put to the appellant as to whether he wanted to produce any defence. Simply there is a note by the Enquiry Officer. It is to the effect "that both the aides agreed that they had nothing to say by way of evidence in the domestic enquiry and signatures of the appellant were obtained under this note. A clear question should have been put to him whether he wanted to produce defence or not."
4. Accordingly the second Labour Court allowed the petitioner's appeal by its order dated 23-2-1976.
5. The second respondent challenged this order of 23-2-1976 in a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was allowed by the Lahore High Court on 18-3-1977 and this petition for leave has been filed against this judgment of 18-3-1977.
6. Learned counsel for the caveator challenged the petitioner's claim to be a workman within the meaning of the said Ordinance. But as this objection relates to a question of fact which was not raised in the High Court. We would examine Mr. Haque---s submissions on the assumptions that the petitioner was a workman under the said Ordinance.
7. According to Mr. Haque, the enquiry conducted by the second respon--dent'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 pies on the grounds. The first was that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry by cross-examining the second respondent's witness and by examining himself. The second ground was that the petitioner had signed a statement that he bad 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. Haque attempted to get round the concession thus made by the petitioner by invoking the rules oil 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 (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 t 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.
8. In the result, the view of the Punjab Labour Court was based on a total misreading of the law and the facts and was rightly set aside by the High Court. The petition is without merit and it dismissed.