MANAGING DIRECTOR, OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CORPORATION LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHARRAF

The decision dated 9‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No‑6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he had received Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification for helping one Muhammad Hanif in the selection of Dallah AVCO. In the inquiry some witnesses were examined who supported the charge. The respondent produced defence. The defence witnesses admitted the incident but deposed that Muhammad Hanif had demanded Rs.5,000 from the respondent saying that he had spent the same for coming to the office several times but had not been selected. It is difficult to say that the allegation was false but since the inquiry was not properly held, the order of reinstatement cannot be interfered with. The Inquiry Committee put questions to the prosecution witnesses after the respondent closed his cross‑examination and thereafter the respondent A was not inquired if he wanted to further cross‑examine the witnesses. If any Court questions are put, the accused should be inquired if he had some more to ask from the witness. The other defect is that Muhammad Rafiq (PW‑5) was re‑examined who corrected his previous statement by saying that the name of Muhammad Hanif was amongst the list of selected candidates for visit to Haram Sharif. In his previous statement he had said that so far as he remembered Muhammad Hanif had been selected. Since the witness had in his previous statement deposed that Muhammad Hanif had probably been selected, so the respondent had not cross‑examined him. Since the subsequent statement of PW‑5 Muhammad Rafiq was detrimental to the case of the respondent, the latter should have been asked to cross‑examine the witness if he liken. The third defect is that the statement of the respondent was not recorded. Certain documents were produced before the inquiry officer but they are not on the file. This means that complete inquiry file was not brought before the learned lower Court. I No reason has been given for withholding the said record. The B presumption is that if the said documents had been brought on the file, they would have benefited the respondent. So in view of the defects pointed out above, the order of reinstatement is justified and cannot be interfered with.

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

A.E. /119/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.