2000 PLP 187 (PLC)

4.Thereupon, the respondent‑Company served a dismissal order, dated November 29 of 1994, on the appellant wherein it was observed that: "Mr. A.W. Pirwani, the Enquiry Officer in the matter has submitted his report in which he has been found guilty of the misconduct as alleged in the show‑cause notice referred above. We examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer and are in full agreement with it."

5. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, conveyed to him under letter, dated November 29 of 1994, the appellant served a grievance notice, dated 12‑12‑1994 under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O., 1969 on the Company and, thereafter, filed an application under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 in the Sindh Labour Court No.3 at Karachi, wherein the appellant got examined himself/cross‑examined. Whereas the respondent examined the Enquiry Officer and the Factory Manager, as their witnesses, who were cross examined by the appellant.

6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant filed affidavits‑in‑evidence of his two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Rashid and Ghulam Nabi, but both of them, having failed to appear for cross‑examination and thus the appellant withdrew their affidavits‑in‑evidence. So there remained solitary word of the appellant himself. The. learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No.3 was, however, pleased to dismiss the said application, against which, the above appeal has been filed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and proceedings before the Enquiry Officer as well as evidence, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer.

8. It seems that in the morning of 1st October, 1994, the appellant was specifically asked by the Stores Incharge, Syed Javed, whose evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer (at pages 89‑‑91), to prepare 28 cartons to be supplied to fourteen Field Officers. Contrary to the specific direction, the appellant prepared 29 cartons. There is no explanation whatsoever, from the fide of the appellant as to how he got prepared 29 cartons when there was specific direction to prepare only 28 cartons. It seems further that he took out, with the help of his two assistants all the 29 cartons outside the Store and then the Store was locked by him. At first, he took with him eight cartons under a gate pass in a rickshaw and directed his assistant Rasheed to take those cartons outside the factory premises under a gate pass of 20 cartons as he had already informed the officer concerned to issue gate pass for twenty cartons to be taken out by his assistant. When at a later point of time, at about 1‑30 the remaining cartons were loaded in a Taxi by his assistant Rasheed, as the appellant had already left, it came out to be 21 instead of 20 while checked by the Security Guard, Abdul Lateef, when the Taxi had already come out of the factory. The relevant statement of Latif shows that: It has also come in the evidence that:

9. The statement of the appellant (page 171 of R&P, who, taking a plea of mistake stated that: appears to be misleading inasmuch as the said extra carton was taken out from inside the Store and the Store was locked, as the appellant was about to leave the factory. .

10. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that there was a dishonest attempt on the part of the appellant, perhaps in collaboration with Rasheed, to take out 21 cartons instead of 20.

11. Reading the evidence, recorded in the domestic enquiry and the evidence, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No.3, leaves no room for any doubt that it was a case of misconduct, not of carelessness, as submitted by Mr. Jeelani before me. It is a case of misconduct, as provided under Standing Order 15(3)(b) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and no exception can be taken as to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.

12. In result, the appeal has no substance and is dismissed accordingly. Announced in open Court, this the 3rd day of May, 1999 H.B.T./289/K/Lab. (Trib) Appeal dismissed.