1987 PLP 64 (PLC)

Muhammad Aqilfor Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th January, 1986. This appeal is directed against an order, dated 3-11-1983 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur. The Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of Moula Bux, the appellant, who was a driver of Pak. Saudi Fertilizers Ltd.

2. The driver, Moula Bux was indicted for theft of Air-conditioner which was stolen on the night between 20th or 21st September, 1981 from Stores Office room of Pak. Saudi Fertilizers Factory. The driver was dismissed in pursuance of domestic enquiry. This dismissal was challenged by the driver before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, however, allowed his grievance petition. The order of the Labour Court was challenged before Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. SUK-223/82. While dismissing the appeal, this Tribunal gave an option to the management to hold fresh enquiry against the appellant and to record evidence on the point of recovery of the Air-conditioner. The fresh enquiry was held and once again the appellant was dismissed. He filed second grievance, petition before the Labour Court against the fresh dismissal of the appellant. In the fresh grievance petition, the appellant filed his affidavit Exh. 3 and the respondents filed the affidavit of Muhammad Yousuf Zaman, Exh.5.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties.

4. Several points were aside in issues by the Labour Court but they are mostly irrelevant and the only question which calls for findings in the matter are: firstly, whether. the respondents could not award punishment to the appellant in view of the order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, and secondly, whether the appellant was illegally dismissed from service. The short point is whether the Air-conditioner was found from the possession of the appellant. Here, the A.S.I. Niaz Ali and S.H.O. Bukhtiar Hussain Shah are most important. They have deposed that the Air-conditioner was recovered from the village of Bago Bhutto, Taluka Ubairo, near main Road on the southern side of Sukkur. Shop of Moula Bux son of Abdul Hakeem was also adjacent. Moula Bux was present. Air-conditioner was secured in presence of Moula Bux and he was arrested. Necessary Musheer and other witnesses were examined by the Police. In nutshell, the recovery of the stolen property was from Moula Bux and his village. This has been proved in the evidence recorded in the Labour Court.

5. An option was given by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal to the management to hold: the enquiry whether the recovery was made from the appellant. This' was the only observation of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. Fresh enquiry was held and it was found that the recovery of Air-conditioner was from Moula Bux. The Labour Court, hence, did not agree with the various contentions of the appellant. He dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, Moula Bux.

6. It is argued that whether in view of the earlier decision of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, the dismissal of the appellant in the domestic enquiry and then his petition being also dismissed in the Labour Court is valid. There are no arguments put forward or any Authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that the fresh grievance petition could not be individually heard and the fresh findings could be given. I held that fresh finding could be given by the Labour Court.

7. The various other contentions raised by the appellant, namely, the examination of Lal Bux or non-joinder of certain parties are not material. The grievance petition being rejected by the Labour Court is correct and I do not find any reason to interfere with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. A. A. Appeal dismissed.