REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
Facts necessary for the disposal of this constitutional petition, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Yousaf and Sardar Ali, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, alongwith some others employees were charge‑sheeted by the petitioner Mills on the allegation that they instigated their fellow workers to strike work and not to come on duty on 14th of August, 1984, although an agreement was arrived at between the management of the C.B.A. that there would be no holiday on the 14th of August and in lieu thereof 10‑9‑1984 was declared holiday alongwith Eid holidays. Respondents denied these allegations whereupon a departmental inquiry was instituted which was held by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Spinning Master of the Mills. During the inquiry Management examined three witnesses, namely, Ghulam Bari Security Officer, Saeed Akhtar Jamadar of the Mills and Abdul Hamid Time Keeper, Shift `C'. Respondents cross‑examined the witnesses produced by the Management but led no evidence of their own. Inquiry Officer vide report dated 2‑10‑1984 (Ex. R/2) found the respondents guilty of the charge levelled against them. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were accordingly dismissed from service vide order dated 9‑10‑1984.
2. Feeling aggrieved, respondents approached the Labour Court by means of a grievance petition. Learned Labour Court after recording the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the grievance petition by order dated 20‑5‑1986 (Annexure O) holding that the respondents had incited the workers to go on strike on 14‑8‑1984 and thereby they had committed a misconduct for which they were rightly dismissed from service.
3. Respondents preferred an appeal against the dismissal of their grievance petition. Learned Labour Appellate Tribunal held that P.W. 2 namely, Saeed Akhtar, did not support the evidence of P.W. 1 viz, Ghulam Bari, Learned Appellate Tribunal on examination of the record found that the statement of Saeed Akhtar made during the departmental inquiry was tampered with. The Tribunal noted the following interpolations in his cross‑examination:‑‑
"Answer to the first question was I saw only the six men that s Mr. Nazeer Ahmed etc. The words `except you" preceding the words that s this
No 3 Sikender Ali No 4 Yousuf Ali No 5 Muhammad Afzal and the word Sardar Ali written after the name of Asghar Ali Malang were added afterwards as the ink is different which is clear even to a naked eye." It was further found by the learned tribunal that the evidence of the remaining witness Abdul Hamid was not against the respondents. It was thus held by the learned Tribunal that "since P.W. 2 did not corroborate the evidence P.W. 1 and since the Inquiry Officer made interpolation in the statement of P.W. 2, conviction was wrongly based and the dismissal order is not sustainable." Respondents' appeal was thus accepted and it was directed that the respondents be re‑instated in service without any back benefits. This was vide order dated 28‑10‑1986. This order of the Appellate Tribunal has been brought under challenge in the present constitutional petition.
3‑A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the inquiry proceedings: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no in the statement of Saeed Akhtar made during the inquiry and, in any case, the alleged interpolation was not put to the inquiry officer when he appeared as a witness in the Labour Court. It is, therefore, argued by the learned counsel that the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in relying upon the so‑called interpolation and rejecting the evidence of Saeed Akhtar during inquiry. I have examined the original statement of Saeed Akhtar which he made during inquiry as P.W.
2. In his examination‑in‑chief, he did not name the respondents. However, his impugned statement in cross‑examination reads as follows :‑ ‑
The word in the afore‑quoted statement appears to be over‑written. Similarly. the words and the names of Sikandar Ali, Yousaf Ali, Muhammad Afzal and Sardar Al appear to have been inserted/added later on. Both the learned counsel also agree on this. Thus, the findings of the learned Appellate Tribunal that P.W. 2 Saeed Akhtar did not support Ghulam Bari P.W. 1 and interpolation was made in the statement of P.W. 2, are not open to any exception. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/employees further contends that even if it be assumed that there was no overwriting/interpolation or subsequent addition of the names of the present respondents in the statement of Saeed Akhtar, it would not make any material difference because the said witness did not accuse them of having incited the workers to go on strike on 14‑8‑1984. This contention appears to be correct. Saeed Akhtar in his statement has nowhere stated during inquiry that the persons said to have been named by him had instigated other workers to go on strike. In the circumstances, the statement of Saeed Akhtar even if taken on its face value does not advance the case of the Management and the learned Appellate Tribunal rightly held that he did not support P.W. 1.
As regards Abdul Hamid witness, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he did not make any statement adverse to respondents Nos. I and 2. Learned counsel, however, contends that Ghulam Bari Security Officer, who 1 appeared as witness No.1 during departmental inquiry has specifically implicated the respondents in the charge and the learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in not relying on his evidence. I am afraid, the contention raised by the learned counsel relates to the appreciation of the evidence which is the exclusive function of the trial Court or of the Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Tribunal was quite conscious of the evidence of Ghulam Bari but since it was not supported by any other witness it was not considered sufficient to support the order of dismissal. This approach cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional defect. Law is fairly well‑settled that appreciation of evidence even if erroneous is not a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the, petitioner has next contended that the respondents had themselves admitted in their reply to the charge‑sheet that they had struck work on 14‑8‑1984 and, therefore, their misconduct stood proved on their own admission. I have perused the reply of both the respondents (P6 and P 7) available at pages 74 and IS of the present record. They, have categorically denied the allegations levelled against them stating that they did not incite other workers to go on Strike. The submission made by the learned counsel f petitioner is thus not borne out from the record.
5. It is finally submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance petition filed by the' respondents was time‑barred. I am afraid ii petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate this question in these proceedings as it does not appear to have been pressed before the Labour Court and admittedly it way not even raised before the learned Appellate Tribunal.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any merit. The impugned order of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is thus not open to any exception. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
A.E./R‑88/L
Petition dismissed.