DISTRICT MANAGER, K.T.C., KARACHI Versus ZAFAR IQBA

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal has been remanded by the High Court are as under:‑

2. The respondent was working as a Driver of the K.T.C. on 21‑6‑1983 while on duty, he is alleged to have assaulted one Abdus Samad, Traffic Assistant. He was charge‑sheeted on 25‑5‑1983 and enquiry was conducted by Abdul Rasool, Assistant Traffic Manager, who examined Abdus Samad and the respondent. The District Manager on 20‑7‑1983 issued the dismissal order.

3. After settling the preliminaries the respondent presented an application before the Labour Court. Respondent was his own witness and Islam Ahmad Khan, the District Manager at the relevant moment, filed his affidavit on behalf of the K.T.C. However he did not appear for cross- examination for a period of two years and the case of the defence was ordered to be closed by the Labour Court after the last opportunity had not been availed.

4. The Labour Court pointed to the glaring infirmities of the case as set up by the appellants, inasmuch as no witness of the incident had been examined either at the enquiry proceedings or at the trial. Even the particulars of the person, who had come to harm, namely Abdus Samad, had not properly been detailed out. It, therefore, ordered the reinstatement of the respondent alongwith full back benefits.

5. Appeal was preferred here during which the order of reinstatement had been maintained but the back benefits were reduced by fifty per cent. The respondent had preferred a writ petition with the High Court resulting in the order of remand.

6. The case of the appellant before the Labour Court went by default inasmuch as Islam Ahmad Khan could not be tested in cross‑examination at all. The legal position, therefore, would be that there was no evidence at all on the record, on behalf of the appellants during the Court proceedings and there is only the version as set forward by the respondent. It is also to be seen that though allegation had been preferred against the Enquiry Officer he also had not been produced at the trial. The fact also remains that the witnesses before whom the incident had taken place were neither named nor examined at the time of the incident or during the enquiry.

7. In view of this position I will uphold the order of reinstatement, and the respondent will get full back benefits for the period from the date of dismissal of service till the time he was reinstated.

H.B.T./2056/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.