Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. MN‑379, 380 and 387 of 1983, decided on 30th April, 1984.

‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Domestic enquiry conducted by not impartial officer and aspersions against him by accused not negated‑ Accused in reply to inquiry notice requesting for change of Enquiry Officer 'Labour Court, in circumstances, held should have permitted de nova enquiry by another independent Enquiry Officer‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition modified accordingly by Labour Court directing that back benefits would depend upon result of fresh enquiry.

Muhammad Akram for Appellants.

S. Nazir Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th April, 1984.

The three appeals captioned above arise from the same decisions. dated 25th June, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur. As the facts and law points involved in all the three appeals are the same, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The three appellants were dismissed on the allegations that they had beaten the Assistant Foreman (Winding). Since the evidence of some of the defence witnesses was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the learned lower Court allowed re‑enquiry and for the purposes of enquiry directed the re‑instatement of the appellants.

3. All the appellants ill reply to the enquiry notice requested for the appointment of some other Enquiry Officer on the ground that Mr. Yaseen, Enquiry Officer, had previously compelled them to join the pocket union and to leave their own union The plea was taken throughout in answer to the second show‑cause notice and thereafter. In these circumstances Mr. Yaseen, Enquiry Officer should have been brought in the witness‑box before the learned lower Court to negate the aspersions laid by the appel lants but it was not done. The evidence of the appellants in this respect, thereafter, stands rebutted. Since the Enquiry Officer was prejudiced against the appellants, no reliance could be placed safely on his proceedings. and report. The learned lower Court should have permitted de nova enquiry directing that some other independent Enquiry Officer should be appointed by the employer.

4. As a result, I partly accept all the three appeals and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, directing that some other independent Enquiry Officer be appointed, who shall hold fresh enquiry from the very beginning. The question of back benefits would depend upon the result of fresh enquiry.

A. E. Appeal partly 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.