1988 PLP 90 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 11th May, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants, Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., Karachi against an impugned order dated 8‑1‑1986, passed by Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1.969, directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19‑2‑1984, the appellant establishment issued a show‑cause notice to the respondent for an 601leged misconduct, namely theft of petroleum. As his reply to the charge‑sheet was found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held against resulting in his dismissal from service on 17‑5‑1984. Thereafter, the appellant after compliance of the requirements of the Law had filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The appellant establishment had resisted the petition on the ground that the respondent was found guilty of a theft by the enquiry officer in a properly and lawfully held domestic enquiry in which he was given full opportunities to defend himself, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service and so no right, guaranteed or secured, had accrued to him to maintain his application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent hence this, appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The sole point for determination in this appeal is that whether the charge of theft of petrol by the respondent was fully established or not, there is only one witness, namely Sabir Chowkidar who had alleged to have seen only a 16 litres cane of petrol in the hand of the respondent along with his co‑worker, Muhammad Haroon. According to this witness, the respondent was putting petrol in his Vespa scooter. It is quite impossible that 18 Litres of petrol can be filled in the petrol tank of Vespa scooter. Furthermore, this chowkidar had confessed that neither there is any petrol pump or petrol tank near the place of alleged occurrence, nor he had seen by his own eyes that this petrol was being stolen. This witness was also quite unaware that petrol cane/Tin actually belonged to the appellant establishment or not because there was no mark of identification or seal of the appellant company. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the bare word of the chowkidar Sabir could not be relied upon. The appellant establishment had attempted to produce one police constable Muhammad Afzal to corroborate the complainant /chowkidar, but, it is strange to observe here that this witness had refused to support the case of theft against the respondent. The enquiry officer had himself confessed that he did not receive any complaint if there was any shortage in quantity of oil in the cane. As the impugned order is thoroughly discussed and well‑reasoned, therefore, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order, so I would maintain the same.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits, forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the appellant establishment in this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent after due verification. S. Q. /1022/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.