1976 PLP 792 (PLC(CS))

K. M. Alvi for Appellant. Shafique Ahmed Butt for Respondent. The respondent, Nazir Ahmed was dismissed from service in May 1974, by his employer, Premier Cloth Mills Limited, Lyallpur on the charge of theft. The employee filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement. The Junior Labour Court ordered the re-instatement on the grounds:- (1) that the inquiry proceedings were not conducted in a fair and impartial manner; (2) that a copy of the inquiry proceedings was not supplied to the petitioner alongwith show-cause notice. The employer has filed this appeal. Alleged theft was committed on 2nd May 1974. At the close of shift the employee was going out of the Mills, on checking the Watchman found that he has concealed some Copper Wire under his clothes. He was produced before the Security Officer who recorded his statement there and then. In his statement the employee confessed that he committed theft. Hs sail that his mother and sister were ill, that be had gone under debt on account of their treatment and so he committed theft. On the report of the Security Officer, the employee was charge-sheeted. He gave a very long explanation the copy of which is Exh. R. B. Again he confessed his guilt. He asked for pardon. He repeated in his explanation that he had gone under debt and he was so much mentally worried that he committed theft. In spite of his version the employer constituted a Board of Inquiry. The employee presented an appeal Exh. R C before the said Board. In this appeal he again confessed his guilt and asked for pardon. After the inquiry report a second show-cause notice was given to him. His explanation was considered by the employer and he was dismissed from service. I do not understand as to how Junior Labour Court came to the conclu sion that a fair and impartial inquiry was not conducted in this case. In fact, there was no necessity to institute an inquiry. The employee was served with a charge-sheet alleging that he bad committed theft of Copper Wires. In reply to this charge-sheet he confessed that he had committed theft. After his confession the employer was not bound to appoint a Board of Inquiry. It was by way of abundant caution that Board of Inquiry was constituted. Even before the Board the confession was made by the employee. The only ground taken in appeal was that the employee was not furnished with a copy of the inquiry rep-it and so the proceedings taken by the employer was vitiated. It was a question of fact whether an inquiry report was given to the employee or not. There is nothing in the evidence of the employee that this report was not given to him. On the other hand Muhammad Salim (P. W. 3), a Labour Officer of the employer, who was a member of the Board of Inquiry stated that the inquiry report was given to the employee. As his evidence was not rebutted, therefore, the only finding which can be given is that the inquiry report was supplied to the employee. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the inquiry report was not supplied, the question is whether this defect is fatal to the action taken by the employer. In this connection Mr. Shafique Ahmed Butt, Advocate relied on Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (1972 P L C 337). In this case his Lordship Mr. Justice Nasim Hassan Shah held that failure to supply the inquiry report offends against the provisions of clause 4 of Standing Order No.

15. His reasoning was that in the absence of inquiry report the employee could not possibly know as to why his defence was not accepted and is case he was supplied a copy of the inquiry report, he may have been able to satisfy the employer that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were erroneous and were not justified. The real criterion is that the employee must show that some prejudice was caused to him when the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied. In the present case the employee had confessed his guilt, he was aware that the charge against him was that he committed theft and so no prejudice was caused to him if the report was not supplied to him. In any case a contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court In re: Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Company. It was held that supply of inquiry report was not necessary and its non-supply does not vitiate the domestic inquiry. The view of the Supreme Court must prevail on the view expressed by the High Court. The employee throughout the inquiry had been confessing his guilt. The employer was therefore, justified to dismiss him from service. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the order of the lower Court is set aside.