1995 PLP 91 (PLC)

7. The petitioner was his own witness while Muhammad Ismail Khan Khattak the Enquiry Officer, appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Labour Court found the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition culminating in this appeal.

8. Out of the 8 witnesses examined during the domestic enquiry 7 are formal in nature and have nothing to say about the happenings. The only remaining witness, though not an eye‑witness of the incident, namely Saleem Memon states to have been apprised of the incident by the Station Manager of the Royal Jordanian Airlines and had rushed to the briefing counter but found it closed. Even he had nothing direct to say anything about the incident.

9. Dr. Riadh Saleh the passenger was not examined and could not be expected to come all the way for the recording of his statement here. Since the proceedings had emanated at the instance of Zahid Diwan the Station Manager of the Royal Jordanian Airlines at Karachi, he should have been there during the enquiry. A letter had been sent to him by Ahsan Siddiqui, the Station Traffic Manager asking him to make himself available for the recording of his evidence. Zahid Diwan had declined to accede to the request. We might as well reproduce his reply in toto:‑ "We have submitted a written detailed complaint about the attempted misappropriation of your check‑in‑staff Mr. Shamim Kazmi on our Flight RJ 191, dated 22‑9‑1990. The regrettable incident had also been conveyed to you in writing by Lt.‑Col. Ikramul‑ul‑Haq, Chief Security Officer, Airport Security Force, Karachi Airport, vide letter No. KASF (OPS)1020/90, dated 26th September, 1990 a copy of which has been endorsed to us. We have nothing further to add and feel with the evidence given in by us and the Chief Security Officer, Airport Security Force it should suffice for your internal departmental inquiries. Yours faithfully. (Sd. ) ZAHID DIWAN, Station Manager"

10. The position therefore that emerges is that there is no evidence worth the name forthcoming against the appellant whatsoever. But it still remains to see as to what the appellant himself had to say about it at different stages of the proceedings ending with his testimony at the Labour Court. The earliest will be the reply to the show‑cause notice. It reads as under:‑ "‑‑‑‑‑‑The statement narrated in the opening paragraph of the subject show‑cause notice is absolutely incorrect; misleading and after thought hence I deny all the fabricated allegations in toto. In fact, the said passenger wanted to have free boarding of his excess baggage, without any payment whatsoever but the undersigned being a dutiful 10 employee of the Corporation, did not allow the passenger to carry his excess baggage without the payment of, lawful dues. Consequently, the passenger in a furious mood agreed to make the payment reluctantly out of his annoyance and paid me Rs.8,300 for which I issued the valid receipt as a matter of routine and according to the procedure. The allegation of receiving US $ 400 is very surprising and the refund of US $ 100 to the passenger by me in presence of the sale officers, is absolutely incorrect and fabricated by officials of the Jordanian Airlines on the basis of the statement given by the passenger to them. It may be mentioned here that the professional and commercial approach has been applied in the instant case that "THE PASSENGER'S STATEMENT IS ALWAYS CORRECT".

11. His next statement was before Ghulam Haider Channar who was initially appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He had the following to say:‑ "Mr. Zahid Diwan, Station Manager, Royal Jordanian, Karachi has made a false complaint against because I had refused to oblige him for his friend who had no confirmed seat and wanted a seat for Bombay. The Chief Security Officer, A.S.F. has also reported against me on the advice/pressure of Mr. Zahid Diwan. On the date of incident i.e. 22‑9‑1990, no complaint was made to my Junior Manager nor there is any entry in the log book and Mr. Zahid Diwan had signed the pro forma of Foreign Handling as normal/OK."

12. He had made a statement before M.I.K. Khattak. It reads as follows:‑ "I am innocent in this case (sic) has been involved due to trade union activities at the time of issuing show‑cause notice. I was organizing Sec. of union of P.IA.C. Employee (UPACE). This is also the result of bitterness of pre-referendum of July, 1990 election campaigns. The allegations against me are incorrect, baseless and after thought due to following reasons:‑ A. As per show‑cause notice US $ 400 were received as excess baggage charges whereas E.B.T. in the amount equivalent to only 300 US $ were issued to the Fax. It is very surprising to note that the said Fax (RIAD SALEH) did not cheek it on the briefing counter, did not check it in the departure lounge, check it after he boarded on aircraft at the time of baggage identification and according to Manager (ZAHID DIWAN) of Royal. Jordanian I backed the money to the Fax on the aircraft in front of different agencies authorities. But according to ASF letter No. KASFCOPS)/1020/90, dated 26th September, 1990 it was returned on check in counter and during the enquiry ASF Inspector M. Saleem Memon recorded his statement that all incident verbally stated by on only Mr. Zahid Diwan (Manager R. J.) after stated Mr. Saleem Memon rushed but he did not find/see anything near or on the aircraft, and briefing counter. The most surprising aspect of this allegation is that the concocted story has no mention in the official log‑book of the various airport agencies referred in show cause notice. In spite of the fact that the same was mandatory as per their procedure in all such incident.‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ . Yes I had exchanged hot talks with him as he wanted me to do illegal favour to a chance passenger and his extra excess baggage from board flight on 17/18th September, 1990, while I was on briefing check in counter duty."

13. In his grievance notice he had put it in the following words:‑ "(2) That I also participated trade in union activities in PIA as an active trade unionist and in this regard joined union of PIA Employees in which later on groups were formed and I joined Akber Group in which I also elected as Senior Deputy‑General Secretary/Organising Secretary.‑_‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (3) That because of my trade union activities the management was hostile with me.‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ "

14. In his affidavit before the Labour Court he averred that he was the office‑bearer of the PIA Employees (Akbar Group) and this had earned the wrath of the authorities. However he had admitted in the cross‑examination that there were 5/6 unions in PIA and there were some 120 persons who were office‑bearers. There were more office‑bearers on the provincial level. He also admitted that none of the office‑bearers had come to any harm and still remained in service.

15. A perusal of these pleas, points how discordant these are, raised as they seem to have occurred at the moment to him, like the attempts of the proverbial drowning man trying to catch any straw that comes his way.

16. It is not a case of mistaken identity. That would have put the matter on an altogether different pedestal. The appellant had admittedly dealt with a foreign traveller who had excess baggage and had to pay for the same. It could be in local currency or an acceptable foreign currency like Dollars or Pounds. The version of the aggrieved traveller was that he had been charged $

400. The receipt, however, shows the payment of Rs.8,300 in Pakistani currency. It is rather surprising, though not unbelievable that a foreigner had so much local currency on the ready.

17. Be that as it may a domestic enquiry under the scheme of the Standing Orders Ordinance is altogether different from a criminal trial where the cardinal principle is that hundred accused persons can go scot free if there is any benefit of doubt available to them, but an innocent person should not come to harm.

18. The scales are different at the domestic enquiry. An establishment commercial or industrial fort' the preservation of its good will and reputation has to provide satisfaction to those who deal with it. An unsavoury or tarnished deal will be its undoing. It cannot simply afford an accusing finger being raised against it or its employees.

19. The respondents dot' not figure anywhere in this story, accusation not withstanding. It was set rolling by a foreigner through his National Airlines Official representative based at Karachi. There is no explanation worth the name forthcoming as to why all this smoke ?

20. I am afraid the dismissal of the appellant is free from all conceivable taint or any colourable exercise of authority. I will therefore affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T/2371/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.