1918 PLP 79 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the decision dated 30‑11‑1976 of Punjab Labour Court, No. 1, Lahore.

2. Abdul Ghafoor, appellant was employed its a Shipper in Top Beverages Division, Lahore of Murree Brewary Company. A charge‑sheet dated, 17‑6‑1974 was served on the appellant for misconduct on account of shortage and loss to the employer's property. The appellant replied to the charge‑sheet, denying the allegations. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and so an inquiry as ordered against him. One Mr. Zafar Alam was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The appellant objected to his appointment on the ground of same specific allegations levelled against him. In spite of the allegations Mr. Zafar Alam conducted the inquiry. The appellant refused to participate in that inquiry. The Inquiry Officer held ex parte inquiry and found the appellant guilty, but no further action was taken against him. On 16‑9‑1974 another charge sheet was issued to the appellant for misconduct, alleging that he had intentionally prepared a bogus record regarding the stock In hand with bad intention and ulterior motives in order to cover up shortages. The appellant replied to 1t:e charge‑sheet, denying the allegations. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and so an inquiry was constituted, in which one Lt. Col. B. K Kanga was appointed the Inquiry Officer. The appellant participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer after recording the evidence of the witnesses found the appellant guilty arid as a result thereof, the services of the appellant were terminated on 5‑2‑

175. The appellant filed a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court for re‑instatement with suck benefits. His petition was dismissed ride decision under appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision. Abdul Ghafoor, appellant has professed this appeal.

4. On going through the inquiry proceedings I find that they were hold after duly observing the procedure contained in Standing Order 15(4) and the charge‑sheet clearly amounted to misconduct as defined under Standing Order 15(3)(b) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1969.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not responsible for the shortages of the raw material of which he was found guilty as he was not incharge of it. This contention has no force because according to the Duty Roster, Exh. R‑3, all stores, including raw‑material items, were placed under the direct charge of the appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal should go into the facts of the case in order to see whether the charge against the appellant has been proved or not. This contention his no force because labour Courts or Tribunals cannot sit as a Count of appeal on the decision taken by the Inquiry Officer which cannot be interfered with in absence of plausible reasons. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in the case, United Distributors Ltd. v. Zahid Hussain Khan and 2 others (P L D 1976 Kar. 376).

7. In the case, Mohammad Shamin v. Pak. Tobacco Co. Ltd, and another (1975 S C M R 46) it was observed: "The last contention that the Labour Court should have gone into the question whether the petitioner had committed any theft or not is also devoid of force. The Labour Court is only concerned with the question whether the action taken against the petitioner was in accordance with law. The question whether the petitioner committed the theft was a question of fact and could only be enquired into by the Enquiry Officer."

8. In the case, Punjab Road Transport Board. Lahore through its Secretary v. Fazal Elahi cud another (P L D 1976 Lab. 1414) it was observed ‑ "The factual part of a domestic inquiry by the employer is open to scrutiny by the Labour Courts only to the limited extent indicated and if they at all undertake such a re‑appraisal they should be well advised to inform themselves of the rules, instructions and the working methods of the Establishment in order to understand the full implications and the background in which such findings of fact have been recorded. To apply the abstract principles or standards of criminal prosecution or of a civil litigation to such proceedings in the absence of such knowledge would be doing violence to the whole infra‑structure of the labour laws."

9. In the case, Mohammad Ramzan v. Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. IV and 3 others (P L D 1976 Kar. 1100), it was observed that a Labour Court can only go into the question whether the inquiry conducted was in accordance with relevant law and the question whether commission of offence fully proved or not can only be enquired into by the Inquiry Officer. Its In the case, The Government of N. W. F. P. through the Secretary to the Government of N. W. F. P. Communications and Works Department, Peshawar v. Mohammad Said Khan and another (PLD1975 SC814), it was observed that the learned Judges of the High Court had frustrated the enquiry by imposing their own judgment for that of the Enquiry Officer who was required to make his recommendations to the sanctioning authority.

11. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.