1993 PLP 903 (PLC(CS))

Azmatullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th December, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 25‑9‑1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.I at Karachi, who had 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 claimed to be a permanent employee of the respondent‑Corporation working as Conductor. He claimed that he was served with the charge‑sheet on 7‑10‑1984 wherein it was alleged that he had not issued tickets to 4 lady passengers who were allegedly travelling from Jamia Cloth Market to Tower and that some Block of tickets were also found in his possession. The appellant claimed that though he submitted a satisfactory reply to the charge‑sheet, but a domestic enquiry was followed resulting in his dismissal from service on 30‑12‑1985, being aggrieved, the appellant submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

3. The respondent‑Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant had realised the fare from the 4 lady passengers but did not issue tickets to them and that he had issued tickets which had already been sold and thus he pocketed illegally an amount of Rs.45. The respondent‑Corporation claimed that the appellant was dismissed from service after having found guilty of the misconduct in properly and lawfully held domestic enquiry. Hence, it was claimed that the appellant was not entitled to maintain his petition, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned Representative for the respondent Corporation and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position on behalf of the appellant that he had used the Block of tickets which was not entered in his voucher and thus, he was rightly charge‑sheeted. It is also an admitted position that an Enquiry Officer was appointed who had conducted proper enquiry and that all enquiry papers bears his signature and that he had received the second show‑cuase notice as well as letter for personal hearing. In view of this position, I am satisfied that the appellant was rightly dismissed from service after having been afforded full and lawful opportunity to defend himself and there is nothing wrong with the impugned order to be interfered with.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same I would, therefore, dismiss the present appeal. A.E./1157/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.