1989SCMR228 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 21st March, 1988. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑Ghulam Haider, respondent No. 2 was at the material time a workman employed in the establishment of the petitioner's Mills. He was charge‑sheeted on the ground that he had thrown away good quality jute yarn and a number of bobbins and buried the same in the ground which acts amounted to misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3)(b) and (c) of the Standing Ordinance, 1968. The management to enquire into the allegations instituted an independent inquiry. As a result of the inquiry respondent No. 2 was found guilty of the charges of misconduct and was dismissed from service on 9th September, 1980.

2. The said respondent after failing to obtain relief from the petitioner on his grievance petition, approached the III Baluchistan Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His petition was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 19th June, 1982. However, his appeal before the Baluchistan Labour Appellate Tribunal succeeded and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits vide order dated 9th December, 1983.

3. Being dissatisfied the petitioner challenged the abovesaid orders before the High Court of Baluchistan in a Constitutional petition which was accepted by a Division Bench which ordered remand of the case to the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

4. On remand the respondent's appeal was once again allowed by order. dated 21st September, 1986. The petitioner challenged the order in a fresh Constitutional petition before the High Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 2nd June, 1987. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court was not justified m upholding the Labour Appellate Court's decision despite the fact that the same was based on no evidence at all. Learned counsel, in this behalf, pointed out that there was no basis at all for the Tribunal to hold that in putting certain simple questions to respondent No. 2 the Inquiry Officer had subjected him to harassment. It was further urged that the ground of vagueness of the charge was not at all relevant, in that, the quantity of jute yarn destroyed by the respondent was not material in view of the fact that the said respondent himself admitted having done so, but his lea was that it was under orders of his superior officer.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that the charges fully substantiated on the evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer and there was no evidence to support the plea of the respondent taken in his defence.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the caveator supported the judgment of the High Court and opposed the petition by submitting that upon the. evidence of the petitioner no misconduct was established.

8. We, however, find prima facie force in the points raised in support of the petition which require further examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security for costs Rs. 3,

000. As regards the stay the order of this Court dated 13th July, 1987, shall continue subject to the condition that the amount of arrears of dues payable to respondent No. 2 already deposited by the petitioner in the High Court shall be retained and the petitioner shall deposit further dues upto date in the High Court, which shall be invested in Khas Deposits by the Additional Registrar, Baluchistan High Court subject to final orders passed in the appeal.

9. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents if any. By consent of parties it is further ordered that the appeal shall be set down for hearing at Karachi after the summer vacations in the year, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay the expenses of the respondent and his counsel for attending the hearing at Karachi. M.Y.H./L‑18/S Leave granted.