1984 PLP 815 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing : 11th January, 1983. This appeal arises from the decision dated 6th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala. whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The facts are that a theft of pipes was committed on 14th August, 1979 in company's godown situated at Ravi Road, Lahore. Muhammad Hanif was in the beginning found guilty and the price of the stolen property was recovered from him. On 9th September, 1980 after a year of the theft the owner of the godown namely Azmatullah reported to the Management that he had seen the respondent taking away the pipes and, therefore. the respondent was charge‑sheeted and after an enquiry held against him, be was dismissed from service on 15th December, 1980.

3. The learned Court has reinstated the respondent on the grounds that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred, that the charge of theft was not proved against the respondent, that second show‑cause notice was served a day after the passing of the dismissal order and that the Enquiry officer was not examined in the lower Court.

4. The charge sheet was not time‑barred because although the factum of theft had come to the knowledge of the employer soon after the theft but information that the respondent was seen taking away the goods was conveyed to him on 9th September, 1980 and on 24th September, 1980 the respondent was charge‑sheeted.

5. Azmatuilah is the eye‑witness against the respondent and has sup ported the prosecution case but since after about one year he came forward with the assertion that he had seen the respondent taking away the pipes, the credibility of his statement is not free from doubt and the learned lower Court rightly did not give any weight to it. More over,. Azmatullah did not say that the respondent was seen taking away the pipe from the godown. He also did not say that the said pipes belonged to the appellant. There is no evidence that any pipe was recovered from the respondent and that it was identified by any one to be belonging to the appellant and was one of those which are alleged to have been stolen from the godown in the possession of the appellant on hire.

6. Except Azmatullah the other witnesses were not cross‑examined by the respondent. His contention is that no opportunity was afforded to him to cross‑examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer was not examined in the lower Court to controvert this contention of the respondent, so it is doubtful if in reality opportunity of cross -examination was afforded. The note of the Enquiry Officer is that the respondent did not want to give any statement. Unless this note has been proved by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that in reality the respondent himself did not give any statement in his defence. The respondent was, therefore, rightly reinstated with back benefit.

7. As upshot of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismissed it. A, E. Appeal dismissed.