1995 PLP 102 (PLC)

(Sd.) (S.M. WAHEED) Officiating Manager Ramp OPS and GSE He had replied to the same but as it was not found to be satisfactory a letter of enquiry was issued and Hassan Iftikhar, Assistant Manager (A&P) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.

3. He had examined M/s. Hilal Saify, Muhammad Yaseen the driver of the tractor. Khan Afsar and Khan Muhammad the complainant. The petitioner did not produce any defence witnesses.

4. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence laid before him found that a case of misconduct had been firmly established and as a result the petitioner came to be dismissed from service on 2's‑8‑1992.

5. The petitioner sent the grievance notice and the petition before the Labour Court followed. In the Written Statement filed by the respondent it was alleged that the petition was barred by time and was not maintainable as the respondents were a part of the Shaheen Foundation which was a charitable trust for the welfare of in‑service and ex‑service men of PA.F. The other allegations also came to be denied.

6. The petitioner was his own witness while Hassan Iftikhar and Group Captain (Retd.) Abdul Razzak appeared on behalf of the respondent.

7. The Labour Court found all the material issues in favour of the petitioner and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits culminating in this appeal.

8. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel for the appellant very properly did not press the contentions about the maintainability of the appeal or the fact that it was time‑barred. We therefore come to the merits of the case.

9. The respondent admits being at the Conveyor Belt in connection with his duty on LH Flight 635/03. Khan Muhammad who is a member of the Lufthansa Staff was also there. He had noticed something being removed by the respondent and kept an eye on him. A little later the respondent had moved out of the Lounge. Khan Muhammad followed. A tractor was standing at some distance and when the respondent had taken his seat there, Khan Muhammad joined him. He found something lying at the back of the seat. Muhammad Yaseen on enquiry had told him that it had been kept there by the respondent. Khan Muhammad states that he had seen to it that the stolen property was kept in the bag from which it had been removed and made the report. There is not a single question in the cross‑examination to suggest as to why he had been maliciously roped in this case. Actually only two questions were put to him in cross‑examination. One was as to why his suspicion had been raised and the reply was that he had kept the vigil as there had been repeated incident of pilferage in the baggages of the passengers of his Airline. The other question was why was he involved when the alleged stolen property had been removed from behind the seat of the driver. It is not necessary to refer to the reply.

10. Muhammad Yaseen the driver of the tractor has stated that he was on duty when round about 6‑00 in the morning the respondent had turned up and asked him for a match‑stick to light his cigarette and then took his seat by his side. On his showing, seeing Khan Muhammad trailing him, the respondent had taken out something from the inner pocket of his overcoat and thrown it at the back of the tractor. Khan Muhammad had seen, and having picked it up, had asked him as to how he had come by it. The respondent had admitted before him that he had removed it from a baggage of a passenger of Lufthansa. Khan Muhammad had then asked him to accompany him to the Lounge alongwith the object recovered by him about which he could not know what it actually was. Again there were two questions. The first was, whether there was any "understanding" between them and then why it was kept specially on his tractor. The reply to the latter question was that there was no other tractor at i the site apart from the one which he had brought.

11. Nothing in the statement of these two witnesses smacks of any of unreliability or lack of respect for truth. The factum of the removal of stolen property and its being put back in the baggage from where it was removed has also not been challenged. Muhammad Yaseen was certainly not inside the building. The respondent was never out of the sight of Khan Muhammad. The latter had valid reasons to believe that Yaseen was an innocent party. But if it were to be otherwise it does not make any difference in the case. The circumstances leave no manner of doubt that the respondent had committed the theft alright which constitutes misconduct under the Standing Orders Ordinance.

12. The learned Presiding Officer based his conclusions on the consideration of two circumstances that (1) no recovery had been made from the respondent and (2) the witnesses could not say that it was an electric shaver which had been pilfered by the respondent and recovered from him. Looking to the rapid succession of events between the removal and the recovery from the place where the respondent had taken his seat, there was no time for any false implication or malicious involvement. And for that no basis exists. As I said earlier the fact that it was put back in the baggage has not been even challenged in the cross‑examination. The fact that the witnesses did not know as to whether it was a shaving razor or something else would be much of a muchless and hardly worthy of any consideration. Even if it was found to be fallen out of the baggage, as at one stage it came to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the latter had no business to appropriate the same for himself. One need not refer to the job description of the latter as was done here, it should have been allowed to remain lying and there is always a place for the custody of unclaimed property at every Airport. It could not be stealthily grabbed by the respondent. I am afraid the impugned order can hardly be sustained. I will therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. H.B.T./2374/Lb.S Appeal allowed.