Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑20 of 1983/Pb., decided on 13th‑August, 1983.

‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Cross‑examination of witnesses‑Complainant as representative of management cross‑examining defence wit nesses‑Not a fatal defect‑Labour Court accepting grievance petition and awarding re‑instatement only on grounds that com plainant cross‑examined defence witnesses‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside and case remanded by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

1982 P L C 1055 ref.

M. S. 8okhar, for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th August, 1983.

The above‑captioned appeal arises from the decision dated 16th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur. whereby the respondent was directed to e reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent absented himself so has been proceeded ex parte. ,

2. The respondent was a mechanical cooli in the appellant mills and was elected as member of the working committee of the Union. On allegation of instigating his co‑workers to go on a strike, he was charge- sheeted and after holding an enquiry was dismissed from service. The only ground on which the learned lower Court has directed the reinstate ment of the respondent is that the Enquiry Officer allowed the complainant to cross‑examine the defence witnesses. Reliance has been placed upon 1982 P L C 1055. Firstly, in the said ruling only passing remarks were made that the complainant had cross‑examined the D. Ws. and this was not the basis of the setting aide of the order of dismissal from service and secondly in the present case the complainant had dual capacity. He was the complainant as well as the representative of the management in the enquiry. Even in criminal complaint cases a complainant cross- examines the defence witnesses if he is not represented by a counsel. Even the counsel cross‑examines the D. Ws. under the instructions of the complainant as only the complainant is familiar with the facts of the case and the status of the D. Ws. and the lawyer engaged by the complainant is a stranger. Since the complainant was in the present case the represen tative also, he was entitled to cross‑examine the D. Ws. In the opening A order of the Enquiry Officer the complainant is mentioned as the represen tative of the management. So this .was not fatal defect. The learned lower Court has not said anything about the merits of the case, so the dispute cannot be finally decided in this appeal.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal ex parte and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision on merits.

A. H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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