1988 PLP 27 (PLC)

Azmatullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 28‑11‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1 Karachi, who has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed with the respondent Corporation as Senior Security Guard since 31‑1‑1978 and was posted at the Head Office of the Corporation and that in addition to his duties, he also used to maintain various registers and to do other manual work. It was the case of the appellant that he was also provided a residential accommodation in the backside of the building of the Head Office of the Corporation. On 30‑3‑1984 the appellant was on duty from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 mid‑night and that after duty hours, two persons belonging to his native place came to him and he served them tea. It was all6ged by the appellant that these two persons had mixed some intoxicating drug in the cup of the tea of the appellant due to which he fell unconscious and on 1‑4‑1984 when he regained senses, he learnt that he was found unconscious in his room by the security guards and then matter was reported to the security guard and Medical Officer of the Corporation and thereafter he was charge‑sheeted and subsequently a domestic enquiry was held resulting in the dismissal of the appellant from service, vide order, dated 4‑8‑1984.

3. The case of the respondent Corporation was that on 30‑3‑1984 the duty hours of the appellant were from 1600 hours to 2400 hours, but, he left his duty at 21.45 hours and went to his residential room, on receipt of a report, the Medical Officer of the respondent Corporation was deputed to examine him and then, he was sent to the casualty unit of J.P.G.M.C. wherein he was admitted for treatment and thereafter a lawful and reasonable domestic enquiry was held against him and as a result of which, he was properly dismissed from service. Further, the case of the respondent Corporation was that the appellant was not a workman, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain grievance petition under section 25‑A , I. R. O., 1969.

3. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, the present appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent Corporation and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that nothing has been brought on record to rebut on behalf of the lent Corporation that the appellant was not a workman. 'Therefore, the claim of the appellant that he was a workman in view T of the nature of his duties has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. I therefore, hold that the appellant was a workman and also competent to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

5. As regards the merits of the case, it has been submitted by Mr. S. P. Lodhi for appellant that it is an admitted position that on 30‑3‑1984, the appellant was on duty from 4.00 P.‑M. to 12.00 P.M. mid‑night and that at 23.59 hours, in coming Senior Security Guard had taken the charge from him and then the appellant went to his residential room where two guests from his native place came to him and out of hospitality he entertained them with tea and in the meantime, he had also put off his clothes and as it is the custom of his native place the appellant wore Dhoti. Mr. Lodhi further submitted that as soon as he took tea, he fell unconscious on account of the fact that the said persons had mixed some intoxicating drug in the cup of tea and when on 1‑4‑1984, the appellant regained conscious, he found that the two visitors had taken with them the tape‑recorder, watch and thermos of the appellant, therefore, whatsoever had happened in the residential room did not amount to misconduct within the ambit of the provisions of standing amount order 15(3) of the Standing Orders ordinance, 1968 and that the appellant could have been dismissed for an alleged misconduct to have been committed by the appellant when he was off duty. There is an admitted position on record that the appellant was found unconscious at his residential room and not during the duty hours or at the duty place. It was the case of the appellant that intoxicating drug was purposefully mixed by the said guests of the appellant in his cup of tea with the main object to commit theft in his room and nothing else. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the respondent Corporation has failed to prove from record that the appellant was guilty of the alleged misconduct. 1, therefore, hold that the charge of the misconduct against the appellant was not proved so his dismissal from service could not be sustained, hence liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I set aside the impugned order and would allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but, with 30% (thirty per cent.) back benefits only. A.E./ 965/ Lb. S. Appeal allowed.