1989 PLP 574 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi on 12‑12‑1988, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent workman employed by the respondents which is a bank and was working as a Cashier in the bank. On 28‑9‑1986, a dacoity was committed in the branch of the respondent bank where the appellant was working and an amount of Rs.1,39,145 was looted. The appellant was suspected of collaboration with the dacoit and he was charge‑shc1acd for collaborating with one Tariq Hussain m looting branch of the bank, vide charge‑sheet, dated 25‑10‑1986. After domestic enquiry, he was dismissed iron: service. Being aggrieved by this order, after serving grievance notice upon the respondents, the appellant filed grievance petition before the learned Labour. The respondents resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant was removed from service after due enquiry in which he was found guilty of the charges and furthermore that the grievance petition was not maintainable as the appellant had not filed departmental appeal which right was available to him under Wage Commission Awards.

3. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and also perused the record and proceedings of the case. To appreciate th: respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the sequence of admitted facts. Admittedly the duty of the appellant on the date of incident ended at 1‑30 p.m. but, he continued to remain in the bank till the dacoit was committed at about 6‑30 p.m. In this period he had received a telephone message and he told the caller that the work will be done. The Guard left for prayer at about 6‑15 p.m locking the door from outside which also could be opened from inside. At about 6‑30 p.m. the dacoit knocked on the door and the appellant opened the door from inside though it was not a time for any banking business. The culprit kept the other staff on gunpoint and threw the bag to the appellant who filled it with the cash. After the report was made to the police, the police detained the appellant whereafter one Tariq Hussain was arrested from whose possession more than Rs. 1,28,000 of the looted amount was recovered. The appellant was not challaned though he was detained for some time in Jail. He, however, was charge‑sheeted and was subsequently dismissed from service on the report of the Enquiry Officer.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that evidence if any against the appellant was not sufficient to prove the charge and therefore, he was not even sent up before the Court. The proof that is required in a criminal case has to be of such nature which could prove the guilt of the culprit beyond any reasonable doubt, but, the proof that is required m a domestic enquiry for adjudicating the charges against the employee is not strictly of that standard. In j the instant case the respondent is a bank to whom the public at large entrust its I hard money for safe keeping. Under the circumstances, it is necessary for the bank to keep such employees in which they have implicit confidence and trust. While adjudicating the charges against the bank employee the criteria would be to see if there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the employee is not worthy of such trust or confidence. I have already narrated the sequence of admitted facts of the case, which strongly point out towards collaboration of the appellant with the dacoit though the evidence may not he sufficient to prove the charge of abetment of the criminal offence in the Court of law. 5‑ It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Enquiry Officer did not act fairly and did not record the cross‑examination of witnesses in accordance with his expectation and he disallowed the request for examining one Israr Ahmed in defence. However, he admitted in the cross‑examination that he had not complained to the respondents against the alleged misconduct of the Enquiry Officer. The learned Labour Court has observed that the appellant did not examine the said Israr Ahmed even before the Labour Court. The appellant has not been able to explain successfully as to why he was sitting so late after his duties finished at 1‑30 p.m. The appellant also complained that he was not given the assistance of co‑worker in the enquiry but as pointed by the learned Labour Court even in the cross‑examination of the respondents' witness the appellant did not suggest that he made any request for assistance of co‑worker. The employer C is bound to give assistance of the co‑worker but only on the demand of the workman and not on his own initiative. The learned Labour Court has also gone through the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer and on the perusal of the enquiry proceedings, has observed that the evidence of the respondents' witness was not contrary to the evidence before the Enquiry Officer.

7. On the basis before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer came to the finding that the charge against the appellant stood proved. The learned Labour Court also on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also on the basis of evidence of the parties before the Labour Court, came to the similar conclusion and has given cogent reasons for coming to such conclusion. I have also gone through the evidence on record and find no reason to disagree with the two concurrent findings on fact of the Enquiry Officer and the learned Labour Court. The mere fact that evidence on record was not such which could end in conviction of the appellant in criminal case would not be sufficient to reject the evidence in the domestic enquiry or to hold that the charge against the appellant for collaborating with the robber is not proved.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./1408/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.