1995 PLP 351 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 20th February, 1995. This appeal is directed against the decision of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 regarding reinstatement of the appellant in service of the Company.

2. The appellant worked as General Craftsman‑I with the respondent Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. as a permanent worker at the Caltex Oil Terminal at Keamari. On the night between 7th and 8th August, 1988 a Lorry with 25000 litres petrol filled from Tank No.8 of the Terminal was intercepted by the Security Police, and appellant Sakhi Gul alongwith others on the lorry was caught red‑handed. They were all taken to Jackson Police Station where the appellant and others were locked up. After police investigation the culprits were challaned in Court. The appellant and two others were also served with 'charge‑sheet for this misconduct. After domestic enquiry they were dismissed from service. Only appellant Sakhi Gul has preferred this appeal against his dismissal.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Advocate for the appellant Sakhi Gul that the domestic enquiry is defective and that the alleged theft not having been proved in the Criminal Court, the appellant was acquitted.

4. Regarding domestic enquiry the learned counsel has raised the objection that the Enquiry Officer had in the course of the enquiry recorded examination of the accused and also of the defence‑witnesses, that he had put questions in the examination of the accused which were in the nature of cross -examination, that he had also tried to cross‑examine the defence witnesses and lastly that he had himself gone for examining the Log Books etc. at Terminal No.8 in respect of the petrol stock entries regarding that. Storage Tank of Caltex and had relied on the extra‑judicial confession of the appellant who had allegedly himself pointed out the broken seal of the Tank. The learned counsel has then argued that mere signatures of the accused on all the enquiry papers would not show, that the enquiry was fair; that in all six persons were proceeded against in the Departmental Enquiry; that. two separate enquiries were held against each batch of the three different accused and while one batch of three accused were exonerated, they were examined as prosecution witnesses in the other enquiry against the appellant and two others. That the enquiry is, therefore, defective. That the theft was not proved in the criminal proceedings in Court and the alleged stolen property namely 25,000 litres of petrol were returned to the owner of the Oil Tanker Lorry.

5. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Muhammad Humayun, learned Advocate for the Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd., that throughout the domestic enquiry no objection was raised by the appellant that the Enquiry Officer was prejudiced and he was acting as the prosecutor; on the other hand the appellant had associated himself with the enquiry and signed each paper without recording any objection. That in any case no martial prejudice had been shown to have been caused to the appellant by any irregularity that has been alleged. The learned Advocate has also pointed out that the Enquiry Officer can hold an independent enquiry and is not bound by the findings of the Criminal Court. That acquittal by the Criminal Court has no effect on the Departmental proceedings.

6. I have gone through the examination of the accused and the defence evidence and cannot find any defect in conducting the enquiry that could have materially prejudiced the interest of the accused. The learned Labour Court has, in a detailed judgment running into seven pages, discussed the evidence and given cogent reasons for decision on each of the five issues which were framed in the case. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry proceeding were proper, that the theft of 25,000 litres of patrol had been committed, that the dismissal was not on account of any union activities but it was due t0 misconduct and that the respondent had rightly been dismissed.

7. I can see no reason to interfere with these findings on facts. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2412/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.