1991 PLP 559 (PLC)

Art. 199

Costitutional jurisdiction

Question of fact

Plea raised by petitioner was concluded by a finding of fact

Conclusion thus was not open to scrutiny in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner. Khalid Farooq Qureshi for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question judgment dated 1-3-1978 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, where by the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the decision dated 19-10-1977 of the Punjab Labour Court No. 11, Lahore was accepted and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with back benefits.

2. The background of the case is that respondent No. 1 was employed as a clerk with the petitioner. He was allegedly involved in stealing the Hob Cutter belonging to the petitioner. Consequently, F.I.R. No. 965, dated 24-7-1976 under section 457/380, P.P.C. was registered with Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore, at the instance of the petitioner company. Respondent No. 1 was not named in the said F.I.R. but charge-sheet was issued to him on 27th August, 1976, on the basis of information allegedly revealed by the police authorities on 9-8-1976, regarding his involvement. Respondent No. 1 denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the petitioner, however, found him guilty vide his report dated 5-11-1976 which led to dismissal of respondent No. 1.

3. The grievance petition filed by the petitioner under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order set aside the order of the Labour Court and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1, with back benefits on the ground that the charge-sheet was time-barred, in terms of Standing Order 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, inasmuch as, the charge-sheet should have been issued within one month of the date of alleged misconduct or the date on which the alleged misconduct came to the notice of the employer. In the instant case, a finding of fact was recorded that the theft was committed on 23-7-1970 and stolen property was recovered on 24-7-1976 from the shop allegedly owned by three partners of respondent No, 1 and the petitioner became aware of the alleged involvement of respondent No. 1 on 24-7-1976.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with reference to the material placed on record that the theft took place on 23-7-1976 and the recovery was made on 24-7-1976, yet the petitioner came to know of it on 9-8-1976 by the S.H.O. concerned. I am afraid the plea raised by the learned counsel for the e petitioner is concluded by a finding of fact which is not open to scrutiny in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Be that as it may, respondent No. 1 has given an undertaking that he would not claim back benefits.

5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 1-3-1978 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, is maintained to the extent of reinstatement of respondent No. 1 who would not be entitled to claim back benefits. To this extent the writ petition is accepted but there shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./P-123/L Appeal partly allowed.