REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT & SUPPLIES CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 18‑10‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The ground on which the order of dismissal has been set aside by the learned lower Court in is that the prosecutor was not allowed by the inquiry officer to be cross‑examined by the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the inquiry officers not being judicial officers and trained in holding inquiries are apt to make such mistakes, therefore, the only defect that the prosecutor was .not allowed to be cross‑examined was not sufficient to set aside the order of dismissal. On the face of it the argument is without force. If a witness has not been allowed to be cross‑examined, it means that opportunity to the person under inquiry has not been given to defend himself. The witness on whose information the proceedings are started is a very important prosecution witness. However, I cannot agree with the learned lower Court in its views that using of filthy language against the General Manager and the management does not amount to misconduct. The simple reason that on the basis of the alleged threats given and filthy language alleged to have been used by the respondent no criminal case was got registered against him was not sufficient to say that no misconduct was committed. Likewise, if the management compromise with other) office holders, it does not mean that no action could be taken against the respondent or that for this reason the respondent did not commit any misconduct. So the only defect remains that the prosecutor was not allowed to be cross‑examined. This argument of the learned counsel) is .also devoid of force that since only for one defect the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service, he was not entitled to back benefits. Since the order of dismissal was not maintainable, the respondent was entitled to back benefits. He asserted in his statement that right from the dat6 of dismissal he remained jobless. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the impugned decision.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

A. E./225/Lb.P

Appeal dismissed.