1984 PLP 1715 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑

This is a petition where the order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal; dated 3rd November, 1980 has been challenged as being without lawful authority.

3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.

2. On 28th May, 1974 he was issued a charge‑sheet where it was alleged that he had fraudulently obtained an additional reference letter of 6th March, 1974 and dishonestly changed the date therein to 75th January, 1974 to mislead the company into paying Rs.

36. This was a reference to the test carried out by Karachi Laboratory on 25th January, 1974. , The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge‑sheet and denied the allegations therein. An enquiry into the charge was held and a report adverse to the petitioner was made by the Enquiry Officer. Show‑cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner replied to the show‑cause notice. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 19th September, 1974. The petitioner gave a grievance notice to respondent No. 2 under section 25 (A) of the I. R. O. of 1969. Since the reply of respondent No. 2 was not satis factory, therefore, the petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court on 5th December, 1974. The respondent denied the allegations in the said petition. The Labour Court examined one witness from each side and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with full back benefits on 3rd June, 1976. However, the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal remanded the case back to Labour Court with the direction to examine the General Manager of the Company and then dispose of the case in that light. The Labour Court examined the General Manager and on 23rd Jane, 1977 after consider ing in detail the deposition of tine General Manager Mr. Yousaf it came to the conclusion that Mr. Yousaf had condoned the misconduct of the peti tioner in making a correction in the reference letter of Dr. Abdul Hameed by changing the date from 3rd June, 1974 to 25th January, 1974. The matter was taken in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and it remanded the case back to consider the question whether the grievance petition had been filed within time or not. The Labour Court again ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back benefits and came to the conclusion that the grievance petition of the petitioner was within time. Finally on 3rd November, 1980 the Labour Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal of respondent No. 2 and came to the conclusion that the General Manager of respondent No. 2 hart not condoned the misconduct of the petitioner because he was not aware of the misconduct and hence there could be no condonation of misconduct unless it had been known as a mis conduct.

3. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case of the petitioner with a great deal of vehemence. His submission was that the Appellate Tribunal had not correctly considered the documents on record otherwise it could not have come to the conclusion that there was no condonation of misconduct, if any. Mr. Khalid Javed has taken us in detail though reasoning of the order of Mr. Nasir Hussain Jafferi of the Labour Court dated 23rd June, 1977 where in the last two paras of his order he has considered the evidence of Mr. Yousafi in detail and has noted that Mr. Yousafi has stated that he was not aware that forgery was committed by the petitioner and that the applicant had informed him that the date was in fact changed by the doctor himself and that the doctor had thereafter informed him that the date had not been changed by him. The Labour Court in its judgment had assessed the evidence of Mr. Yousafi and came to the view that Mr. Yousafi was aware of the fact that the change in date was made by Mr. Abrar and that knowing this peti tion he ordered for the refund of the amount. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that an endorsement had been made by the Accountant that the date has been changed by the petitioner and, therefore, in view of that endorsement Mr. Yousafi must have ordered the refund of the amount spent by the petitioner. The Labour Court did not believe Mr. Yousafi that he did not see endorsement of the accountant or did not consider it. The Labour Court was also of the view that since the test of the wife of the petitioner had actually been conducted on 25th January, 1974, therefore, it was a genuine test.

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal where the evidence of Mr. Yousafi has been again appraised by respondent No.1. It has been noted in that order that forgery was committed by the respondent in respect of the reference letter of Dr. Hameed. It has further been noted that the test in respect of petitioner's wife was carried out on 6th March, 1974 and it was on the basis of reference letter from the Company's Dr. Abdul Hameed. But there was no reference from the Campany's doctor in respect of first test held on 25th January, 1974. The respondent No.1 noted that it was not in the know ledge of the accountant of the respondent No. 2 Mr. Turaba nor Mr. Yousafi that the petitioner had in fact obtained a duplicate certificate in respect of second test carried out on 6th March, 1974. The endorsement of Mr. Turaba was that the date has been corrected by the petitioner Abrar Saeed and Mr. Turaba had deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the reason given by the petitioner for correcting the date in the reference letter was that letter given by the Company doctor for reference might have been misplaced by the Karachi Laboratory.

5. We find that the respondent No.1 has considered almost every aspect of the case including the deposition of Mr. Turaba, deposition of Mr. Yousafi, endorsement made by Mr. Turaba and the change made by the petitioner in the reference letter of Dr. Hameed and there is nothing of any importance which has not been considered by respondent No.1. It is correct that on the basis of the same evidence the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the misconduct of the petitioner had been in fact condoned by Mr. Yousafi while the respondent No. I has racked to the converse find ing that no such condonation had in fact been made by Mr, Yousafi because he was not conscious of the forgery. We have referred to the appreciation, of evidence made by the two Tribunals below only in order to examine in' detail whether there was any real basis of grievance of the petitioner. We did so also on account of labour put in by the counsel of the petitioner. We are however, not inclined to agree with the petitioner that there has been any misreading or misconstruction of the documents by the respondent No.1. It was within the jurisdiction and powers of respondent No.1 to take a view of the evidence different from the one which lead been taken by the Labour Court and this appears to be just a matter of apprecia tion of evidence and in these writ petitions High Court does not really have the jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of appreciation of evidence even though if the matter had come to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction it might have taken a different view.

6. We do not find any justification for interfering with the impugned judgment passed by the respondent No.1. Mr. Khalid Javed also wanted B to submit that there had b‑.en an irregularity in the proceedings of the enquiry. We do not find any justification in this submission as this point has no been taken by the petitioner in the ground of petition. Mr. Khalid submit tad that in para. 5 of the grounds the petitioner had submitted that the charge‑sheet had been issued mala fide. This mala fide allegation in respect of charge‑sheet has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and. therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner had not challen ged the enquiry proceedings at all in this petition and hence he cannot be allowed to do so now. This petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is hereby dismissed. A. R. Petition dismissed.