Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute Domestic enquiry - Complainant and eye-witness sitting in Board of Enquiry despite objection of accused-Conclusions arrived at in such enquiry, held, not sustainable. It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. An enquiry which is conducted by a person who was in the position of a witness and in which no opportunity was given to the person charged to cross-examine him cannot be sustained.                                                                                                                             ORDER Ghulam Farid Mazari, Alta Dad Khan, Abdul Rashid, Sufi Mohammad Usman, Nisar Ahmed Bhatti and Azhar Mirza, petitioners have filed separate applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the Management of Khurram Chemical Company Limited, Rawalpindi for their re-instatement and consequential benefits. By my order dated 29-1-7 3 Applications Nos. 947, 948, 400 and 951 were consolidated and tae proceed ings have been recorded in Petition No. 947 of 1972. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions and Petitions Nos. 950 and 952, therefore, all these petitions shall be decided by this order. The case of the petitioners is that they were served with charge-sheets on 25th and 26th August 1972 containing allegations that they had gone on illegal strike, instigated other workers for going on strike and engaged themselves in riotous and disorderly behaviour. Then a joint enquiry was field against them and they were dismissed from service on 18-9-72. The petitioners have contended that the enquiry was not properly held as they were not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and their objections to the presence of Mr. Usman lqbal in the Board of Enquiry was rejected without any justification. It…