1978 PLP 372 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the decision dated, 11‑2‑1976 of Punjab Labour Court No. 3 Lyallpur, given under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. Mohammed Shafi, respondent was employed as a Watchman in the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur. On 18‑5‑1975 Azmat Khan. Assistant Yard Master, Abdul Aziz. Foreman and Sardar Mohammed Mechanic were standing together and they caw Mohammad Shafi, respondent, carrying some wrapping papers. Azmat Khan asked him as to what be was carrying: Sardar Mohammad caught hold of the wrapping papers from him. Suddenly the respondent attached those papers and went towards the gate. Those three persons then followed him. At the gate they enquired from Wadi Hussain, Head Watchman, as to what happened to the papers, whish were being carried by Mohammad Shaft, respondent. He pleaded ignorance. Mohammad Shah, respondent was again asked as to what he had done with the papers. He replied that be had put them in the Almirah of the Accounts Office. He 'however, was found carrying a few papers which were taken possession of by the person present there. After that they went to the Almirah of the Accounts Office and from there took into possession 33 wrapping papers. Azmat Khan, Assistant Yard Master made a report to the District Manager about this occurrence. The District Manager after considering the report, suspended Mohammed Shag, respondent and served him with a charge‑sheet. On finding the reply of the respondent to the charge‑sheet unsatisfactory, the District Manager ordered the enquiry. In that enquiry Azmat Khan, Assistant Yard Master, Abdul Aziz, Foreman appeared as prosecution witnesses against the respondent. The statements of these witness were signed by the respondent but he did not cross‑examine them. The respondent appeared as his own witness and stated that on 18‑5‑1975 Wadi Hussain, Head Watchman had ordered him to check the locks of the Accounts Branch, and that when he went there, he found six file covers lying on the dump which he picked up in order to give them to his children to use them as wrapping papers for their books. He also stated that when he met Azmat Khan and other he showed them those papers, which he took to the gate and kept them there. He expressed his desire to examine Wadi Hussain in his defence. The statement of Wadi Hussain was recorded two days later in the absence of the respondent. The Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty and on the basis of that report the services of the respondent were terminated on 24‑7‑1975 by the District, Manager. The respondent challenged the order of his termination before the Labour Court by way of a petition under section 25‑A of the Ordinance. The learned Labour Court accepted the petition and directed that the respondent be re‑instated with back benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the decision, the District Manager. Government Transport Service, Lyallpur, appellant had preferred this appeal.

4. On going through the record I find that there was serious infirmity in the enquiry proceedings because the statement of Wadi Hussain, defence witness, was recorded in the absence of the respondent. Secondly I find that there are discrepancies in the statements of two prosecution witness namely Azmat Khan, Assistant Yard Master and Abdul Aziz, Foreman.

5. Azmat Khan stated that he saw the respondent carrying some Khaki papers, and that when he enquired as to what he was carrying, Sardar Mohammad, Mechanic took the papers from him. He also stated that the respondent snatched those papers and went towards the gate, that he (this witness) and his companion followed him there, and enquired from Wadi Hussain about those papers but he showed ignorance, that the respondent when contacted showed them few papers and about the remaining papers he told them that he had kept them in the Almirah of the Accounts Office, and that thereafter he (this witness) and his companions went to the Accounts Office and recovered those papers.

5. Abdul Aziz stated that the respondent was carrying 60 or 70 file covers, that Azmat Khan wanted to see them, that the said papers were taken possession of by Sardar Mohammad, Mechanic but the respondent received them back and went towards the gate, and that when he (this witness) and his companions went to the gate they found that all the papers had been kept there, which they took into their possession.

6. The evidence of Azmat Khan does not appear to be true because it is difficult to believe that if the respondent had really intended to steal the papers, he would never have placed the bulk of them in the Almirah and still carry a few to the gate in the presence of all these witnesses. In any case only few papers were recovered from the person of the appellant, the value of which was very little. It appears that the prosecution witnesses have tried to make a mountain out of a mole‑hill.

7. Taking all the above circumstances into consideration I find the order terminating the services of the respondent was not called for.

8. In the result I find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.