DECISION ' This judgment will dispose of 7 appeals bearing Nos. SUK-145 to 151/77 filed by one Syed Zakir Ali, an employee of the Pakistan Railways against 7 of his co-workers mentioned successively as respondent No, 1 in each appeal and the Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Lahore, the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway, Sukkur and the VII Sind Labour Court Sukkur, cited as respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively in each of these appeals.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to these appeals are as under :-
3. The appellant, Syed Zakir was appointed as a Ticket Collector, Grade 1 in the then P, W. R. On 6.2.1958. On 17.2-73 the respondent No, 3, viz., the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway, Sukkur issued a Seniority List fixing the seniority of the appellant at Item No, 117-A. Again on 2.4-74 the respondent No, 3 issued another Seniority List fixing the seniority of the appellant at Item No, 165 without service of any show-cause notice to the appellant and without hearing the appellant.
Being aggrieved by this, the appellant after adopting the usual grievance procedure filed an application before the then Junior Labour Court No, VI which was registered as Application No, 88 of 1974. On 12-9-74 this Court passed an ing this application of the appellant and directing the respondent No, 3 to fix the seniority of the appellant from the date of his entry into the cadre of Ticket Collector, I. e. T. C. R. Grade I. No appeal was preferred against this order which achieved finality and was also implemented by the respondent No, 3 vide Letter No, 729-E/12/50/ ACME(847- E/18/ACME), dated 4-1-75 placing the appellant at S. No, 85-A of the Senority List. Accordingly, the appellant was confirmed as Ticket Collector, Grade I w. e. f. 21-7-60 and was later promoted as Ticket Collector, Grade II on 6-1-75 as a result of which promotion ho was put to officiate as Special Ticket Examiner, Jacobabad.
4. In the month of May, 1976 the appellant came to know that his co-employees, the respondents mentioned at No, 1 in these 7 appeals, had each filed an application under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969 before the VI Junior Labour Court challenging the validity of the fixation of the seniority of the appellant but without impleading the appellant as a party in any of the 7 applications. The appellant then applied to be joined as a party and on 15-5-1976 this Court passed an order joining the appellant as respondent No, 3 in each of the 7 applications and directing him to file his reply- statement on 29-5-76 which he did. On 12.6-76 the appellant filed his affidavit in the 7 cases which were then fixed for cross-examination. Thereafter these cases were transferred to the newly created VII Labour Court at Sukkur where they were received on 15-2-77 and were fixed for cross- examination. It is pointed out by the appellant in his appeal memo that since he was made a party to the 7 applications and was joined as a respondent, he had a right to cross-examine the applicants and the respondent No, 3's witnesses. On 29-3-77 and again on 2-4-77 the appellant preferred an application for adjournment submitting that his Advocate Mr. Hassan Hamidi who had the case papers with him was out of Sukkur and his whereabouts were not known. But the learned Presiding Officer of the VII Sind Labour Court at Sukkur did not consider this request and without giving consideration to the fact that the appellant was impleaded as a respondent party only on 15-5-76 and hence was entitled to exercise his right of cross-examination, the Court passed an order on 2-4.77 fixing the cases for arguments on 19-4.77 holding that both the Advocates Mr. Sanaullah Qureshi for the appellant and Mr. Anwar for the respondents had on 15-8-1975 made statements giving up cross-examination of each other's witnesses. It is important to note that on 15-8-75 the appellant, Zakir All was not a party to these proceedings having only been joined 9 months later on 15-5-76. Hence the first point urged by his Advocate, Mr. Hamidi in support of these appeals is that the impugned order of the Court below is against the principles of Natural Justice as no chance or opportunity had been afforded to his client of cross-examining the applicants and their witnesses and any other witness examined in these eases.
5. In these 7 appeals I have heard Mr. Hamidi on behalf of the appellant: Mr. Sanaullah on behalf of the 7 respondents and Mr. Anwar on behalf of the Railway Authorities.
6. Without entering upon the merits of these 7 appeals and without adverting to the lengthy arguments of the Advocates, it seems to me that these 7 appeals can be disposed of on the short point that a basic rule of natural justice has been violated in that the appellant, Zakir Ali had no chance or opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined in these cases. In this view, then these 7 matters must be remanded to the Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur for further hearing so that the appellant can have an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined in these cases.
Accordingly, I had passed a short order in Court to this effect and this judgment now contains the reasons for that short order.
7. To me it is plain that a basic and fundamental right of the appellant has been violated by fixing the case for arguments without allowing him an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined in this case. On this point Mr. Hamidi has invited my attention to a case reported in PLD 1975 Quetta 1 where the present Acting Chief Justice of the Sind High Court, Mr. Justice Agha Ali Hyder has used these words, "the very purpose of the cross-examination is to challenge the veracity of the witness and it is an axiomatic principle of law that where no opportunity to cross- examine the opponent is given, his evidence would be inadmissible." The learned Judge in a later paragraph has stated that "I am clearly of the opinion that the adjudication of the suit was in flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings stood vitiated." Now, it is no doubt true as pointed out by Mr. Sanaullah that the appellant, Zakir Ali had at no time in the one year between 15-5-76 and 28.4-77 between his being joined as a party and the disposal of these cases made any move or application to be given a chance of cross-examining the witnesses; but the right of cross- examination is a basic and fundamental right and as such, In my opinion, the appellant is entitled to it irrespective of whether he asks for it or not. Besides there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had abandoned or forsaken or given up this valuable right of his.
8. For these reasons, then, I am of the opinion that the 7 cases must be remanded to the Labour Court below for trial in accordance with law and while ordering so I direct that there will be no order as to costs.