' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By these five identical Constitutional petition's, petitioners, Mir Muhammad, Amir Bux, Qadir Bux, Allah Julio and Ghulam Nabi Shah have assailed the common judgments dated 31-1-1994 and 23-9-1992 respectively passed by respondents No,1 and 2, whereby their respective grievance applications under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969, preferred against respondents Nos.3 and 4 were dismissed by respondent No,2 and such judgment was maintained in appeal by Respondent No,l. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these petitions by this common judgment. Succintly the relevant facts, which are almost common in all petitions, forming background of this litigation are that the petitioners, who were workmen in the Sugar Mills of respondents No,3 were dismissed from their services by private respondents. According to the petitioners, without serving any show-cause notice ex parte enquiry proceedings were held against them, wherein they were found guilty of misconduct in terms of charges levelled against them and consequently they were dismissed from service vide letters dated 7-8-1988. The petitioners on receipt of their dismissal orders served their .Respective grievance notices on respondents Nos.3 and 4 on 5-11;1988, which were replied by private respondents on 14-11-1988, but their grievances were not redressed. Consequently the petitioners filed their respective applications under section 25-A of the 1.R.O. Before respondent No,2 on 5-1-1989. In these applications petitioners reiterated same grievance that no charge-sheets were served on them, no enquiry was held, but all of a sudden they were served with the orders of their dismissal from service by private respondents' which has given them cause for initiating such proceedings.
2. In their reply statements respondents Nos.3 and 4 challenged the 03 maintainability of the two applications under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969, filed by the petitioner Ghulam Nabi Shah and another workman Karim Bux, who is not before us, on the grounds being barred by time, lack of territorial jurisdiction and not being, workmen. On facts, respondents Nos.3 and 4 denied the claim of all the petitioners, and asserted that service of charge-sheet was effected on all the petitioners through different modes as detailed in the written objections but the petitioners did not submit any reply. Thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed, who served notice on the petitioners for holding such enquiry, but again the petitioners failed to participate, whereafter enquiry proceedings were conducted in their absence, wherein the petitioners were found guilty of misconduct as per charges against each of them and in terms of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 20-7-1988. Accordingly they were rightly dismissed from service vide letters dated 7-8-1988.
4. At the stage of evidence, each of the petitioners examined himself in his respective grievance application before respondent No,2, while from the side of respondents Nos.3 and 4 they examined Rao Muhammad Shafqat, their General Manager, Liaquat Ali Khan Administrative Manager, S.P.
Lodhi a Labour leader and Akhtar Ali postman.
5. The Respondent No,2 at the time of passing impugned judgnient dated 23-9-1992, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties before him, came to the conclusion that charge- sheets were duly served the petitioners by different modes and that proper enquiry was also held against them wherein they were rightly found guilty of misconduct as attributed to them and consequently all the grievance applications were dismissed.
6. The petitioners challenged the order of Respondents No,2 before Respondent No,1 by way of filing their respective appeals under section 37(3) of the I.R.O. 1969, which were heard together and disposed of by common impugned judgment dated 31-1-1994. In its judgment Respondent No,1 concurred with the view of Respondent No,2 as to the due service of charge-sheets on the petitioners and holding of enquiry proceedings against them in accordance with law and consequently the appeals preferred by the petitioners were also dismissed.
7. Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued the case of the petitioners and urged following grounds:--
(a) No charge-sheets were served on the petitioners as required by law hence all further proceedings were illegal.
(b) No enquiry proceedings were held against the petitioners and in the alternative the Enquiry Officer nominated by Respondent No,3 was outsider, thus the proceedings held by him were illegal and not warranted by law.
' The cross-examination of two witnesses recorded in the case of Ghulam Nabi was illegally taken into consideration by Respondent No,2 in all the six cases.
8. Learned counsel also made reference to the reported cases, 1993 PLC 485, PLD 1988 SC 633, 1986 SCMR 1121 and recent judgment of this Court dated 21-1-2004 in C.P. No, D-447 of 1999 to fortify his submission that even concurrent findings of facts recorded by two tribunals, if based on misreading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect, are not immune from interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
He, therefore, urged that the two judgments impugned in these petitions may be set aside and the petitioners may be reinstated in the service of respondents Nos.3 and 4 with all back-benefits.
9. Conversely, Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 firstly took us to the findings of respondents Nos.1 and 2 recorded in their respective impugned judgments to show that the aspect of due service of charge-sheet on all the petitioners was intensively examined by both the Courts and that their findings in this regard are based on proper assessment of evidence, thus not open to question before this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. To fortify this submission learned counsel placed reliance on the following cases.
(a) Mukhtar Ahmed and 2 others v. Chairman, S.L.A.T. And 2 others (2000 PLC 144).
(b) Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415).
(c) National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others (1996 PLC (C.S.) 433).
(d) (Messrs Crescent Pak. Industries Ltd v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Pakistan Secretariat, Karachi and another, (2000 PLC 274).
(e) Qayyum Nawaz and 9 others v. N.-W.F.P. Small Industries Development Board, Peshawar through Managing Director, Kohat Road, Peshawar and 4 others (2000 PLC 215).
10. As to the factual aspect regarding service of charge-sheet on the petitioners learned counsel again referred to the material placed on record by the petitioners before us and contended that though so much was not required by law but the private respondents had taken all possible care in effecting service of charge-sheet upon the petitioners, inasmuch as, firstly, the charge-sheet was served on them by hand, which they had refused to accept, secondly, copy of charge-sheet was pasted on the Notice Board of the Sugar Mills, thirdly, charge-sheet was despatched to the petitioners by Registered Post A.D. At the address of their Union office, fourthly, copy of such charge-sheet was sent to the Labour Directorate for their information and service on the petitioners, and lastly, copy of the charge-sheet was attached with the grievance application filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 before N.I.R.C. Which was duly received before the N.I.R.C. By the representative of the petitioners, Mr. S.P. Lodhi. He therefore, contended that there is no legal infirmity, misreading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of the two Tribunals i,e, respondents Nos.1 and 2 and in such circumstances these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Dilating upon the legal aspect as to the service of charge-sheet in such matters learned counsel further placed reliance upon the cases reported as Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Ghuftar Shah and another (PLD 1981 SC 225), Rashid Ahmed v. Messrs Friend Match Works (PLD 1989 SC 503), Khuda Bux v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (1981 SCMR 179) and Munawar Hussain v. Superintending Engineer, Agriculture Machinery Organisation, Guddo Barrage Project, Sukkur and 2 others (PLD 1971 Kar, 733).
11. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. With reference to the plea of the service of charge-sheet on the petitioners, which is the crucial plea raised by Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan on behalf of the petitioners, we have perused the case record specially the evidence of Postman Akhtar Ali Exh. R/31. This witness, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that service of charge-sheet on Allah Jurio was not effected as he could not be traced out, Ghulam Nabi petitioner had refused to receive the registered post notice containing the charge-sheet, while four other workmen including the petitioners Qadir Bux, Mir Mohammad and Amir Bux were duly served with registered post letters containing such charge-sheets. This statement of witness is further supported with various documents placed on record by him as Exh.R/31/1 to R/31/12. In his cross-examination the learned counsel for the petitioners only questioned the deposition of postman with reference to non-service of notice/charge-sheet on Allah Jurio and Ghulam Nabi Shah, but not a single question was put to him as to the service of notice on other four workmen, out of whom, excluding Karim Bux, three are petitioners before us. Not only had this but claim of service of charge-sheet on the petitioners through their representative Mr. Lodhi, who represented them before N.I.R.C. Also remained uncontroverted.
12. In view of the above discussion, we find no misreading or non-reading of evidence as to the findings of respondents Nos.1 and 2 regarding due service of charge-sheet on the petitioners.
13. The next contention of Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan with reference to non-holding of enquiry proceedings or in the alternative holding of enquiry through an outsider has also no force for the reason that no such pleas were raised by the petitioners in their grievance application under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 filed before Respondent No,2, therefore, any evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into for this purpose. In this regard we 'find force in the submissions of Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani that the plea of holding of enquiry through an outsider was neither raised before, respondent No,2 nor before respondent No,1, therefore, such contention, for the first time, cannot be raised in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, in view of the dictum laid down in the case of Mujahid Hussain Shah v. K.S.B. Pumps Company and 2 others (1997' PLC 132) such contention is without force.
14. The last contention of Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan with reference to considering the evidence of two witnesses recorded in one case, in other cases has also no force as such procedure was followed at the joint application of parties, which fact has not been disputed before us, and further petitioners have failed to show that any prejudice was caused to them by adopting of such procedure by respondent No,2.
15. The Respondent No,1 in its judgment has discussed in detailed each and every relevant aspects of the case and has rightly dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners, therefore, such judgment is unexceptionable. We record our sincere appreciation for the labour put up by Respondent No,1 in dilating upon each aspect of the case in a comprehensive and prudent manner.
16. For the foregoing reasons we find these petitions without IL substance and the same are accordingly dismissed.