Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR.‑228 of 1976, heard on 16th February 1977.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Misconduct‑Domestic enquiry‑Officer charge‑sheeting accused workman, an aggrieved person as having been reportedly abused by accused ‑Person appointed as Inquiry Officer, a witness to main incident for which workman charge‑sheeted‑Enquiry, held, in violation of principle of natural justice‑Order of Labour Court dismissing application under S. 25‑A set aside.

Ali Amjad for Appellant.

S. S. Jahangir for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 16th February 1977.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellant under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance for his re‑instatement.

2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. On account of some misconduct he was charge‑sheeted and an Inquiry officer was appointed. After the inquiry was held the appellant was found he was served with a show‑cause notice. Thereafter, he was guilty service. He, therefore, approached the Labour Court after serving the grievance notice as required by section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance‑-

3. The application was resisted and various grounds had been pleaded. It was stated that the proper inquiry was held and since the appellant was found guilty of misconduct, he was dismissed from service, and, therefore, no exception could be taken.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Labour Court found no weight in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal bad been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised four grounds before me. The first ground taken by him is that Mr. Muzzamil Ali Khan who was the Administrative Officer was an aggrieved person as he was said to have been abused by the appellant and he had issued the charge‑sheet. The second ground which was taken is that Mr. Iqbal was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the same Administrative Officer, Mr. Muzzamil Ali Khan. The third ground which was taken was that the Enquiry Officer was, in fact, a witness of the alleged incident as the incident had taken place in his presence and in his office. The fourth ground which was taken was that the Enquiry was taken ex parte and no opportunity was allowed to the appellant to participate in the enquiry.

6. I have considered all these grounds and I am of the opinion that there is a considerable force in grounds Nos. 1 and 3. The complainant was the aggrieved person as he was said to have been abused and the Inquiry Officer was a witness to the main incident for which the appellant was charge‑sheeted. Consequently, it was a violation of principle of natural justice that the complainant should be prosecutor and persecutor and witness should be appointed as an Inquiry Officer. Justice should no only be done but it must be appeared to have been done. I am unable to support the aforesaid action.

7. So far the remaining two pleas are concerned, I find no force in them as the Inquiry Officer was appointed at the instance of the Managing Director and, therefore, no exception can be taken. The allegation; of the appellant that the inquiry was held ex parte and be was not allowed an opportunity to participate in the inquiry lacks sufficient evidence and whatever evidence was tendered was rightly disbelieved by the learned Presiding Officer.

8. In view of my findings of grounds Nos. 1 and 2 I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. It is, however, open to the respondent to appoint another Inquiry Officer and hold an inquiry and take such action as may be deemed fit in. accordance with law.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.