Pakistan Case LawTRUST CERAMIC INDUSTRIES Versus REHMAN GUL
This appeal challenges the order of the Labour Court reinstating the respondent-employee, who had been dismissed by the appellant-employer following allegations of using abusive language and misbehaving with his supervisor. The core legal question was whether the dismissal was sustainable in the absence of supporting evidence during the inquiry. The tribunal held that since the key witnesses to the incident were not examined in the fresh inquiry nor before the Labour Court, and their previous statements were not produced, there was a total absence of evidence to support the charges. The outcome of the case is that the appeal was dismissed and the Labour Court's order upholding the reinstatement of the respondent was affirmed. The key principle laid down is that a dismissal from service based on misconduct cannot be sustained when there is a total absence of evidence to support the allegations framed in the charge-sheet.
- Whether a dismissal from service can be sustained in the total absence of evidence supporting the charge-sheet?
- Is an employer required to make efforts to trace and examine material witnesses in a fresh departmental inquiry?
- Whether an ex parte inquiry is legally valid when key eyewitnesses are neither examined nor their previous statements produced?
DECISION
This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court re instating the respondent, who had been dismissed by the appellant.
2.The respondent is alleged to have used abusive language and misbehaved with his Supervisor namely Muhammad Azeemullah Khan on the 21st of September, 1989. He was charge‑sheeted and after an ex parte enquiry had been conducted, he had been dismissed from service.
3.Once the preliminaries had been settled, a petition was filed before the Labour Court which came to be allowed, with back benefits, but with the direction for holding a fresh enquiry.
4.In this very context it might be mentioned that he was re‑instated in service pursuant to the order of the Labour Court.
5.The fresh enquiry was to be conducted on the 5th of December 1990. This time again it was ex parte. It is not necessary to go into the rival contentions in that context,‑‑‑‑ the appellant's saying that he was sent for but he refused to participate in the enquiry, and the respondent saying that he was not sent for at all, though present in the factory.
6.Muhammad Azeemullah Khan was the complainant and the incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Azizuddin. These were the two persons who were examined in the earlier enquiry. On the showing of the appellants they were not examined in the latter enquiry because they had left their services.
7.Assuming that they had left the services as stated, their addresses would‑have been on the record of the appellant. An attempt to trace them out and examine them should have been made. They were not examined m the Labour Court either summons could have been applied for. Even that was not done.
8.What happened was that only one Abid Ali was examined. He was not a witness of the incident. It was still open to the respondent to produce the statement of the 2 witnesses earlier examined though not tested in cross examination. But even that was not done. The situation, therefore, is that, there is a total absence of evidence in support of the allegations on which the charge- sheet had been issued. That by itself is enough to clinch the issue. It is not therefore necessary to examine the other aspect of the case which found favour with the Labour Court in reaching the conclusion that the dismissal of the respondent was illegal.
9.I am clearly of the opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.
H.B.T./2219/Lb.S.
Appeal dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Agha Ali Hyder560 judgments