1995 PLP 346 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 16‑12‑1982, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.VII, 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 was a permanent employee of the respondent bank since long and was performing his duties to the best of his abilities and on 7‑3‑1981 he was served upon a notice imposing a penalty on the allegation that on 13‑2‑1981 at midnight, an incident of theft/burglary had occurred at Wango Deh Jahan Khan Branch on account of the absence of the appellant from the place of the duty. The appellant claimed that though, he submitted satisfactory reply on 15‑2‑1981, but he was put under suspension, vide order, dated 14‑2‑1981 followed by a letter, dated 31‑5‑1981 that on 3‑6‑1981 a domestic enquiry will be conducted. The appellant further claimed that on 3‑6‑1981 he was present but no enquiry was conducted and thereafter, vide letter, dated 29‑6‑1981 his services were dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant claimed that he submitted a departmental appeal on 8‑7‑1981 and receiving so reply of it, he submitted grievance notice upon the respondent Bank on 30‑8‑1981 and as, it was rejected, therefore, he submitted his grievance petition on 8‑9‑1981.

3. The learned Labour Court No.VII, vide its order, dated 13‑9‑1981 had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for want of jurisdiction and as, this Tribunal in its appellate jurisdiction had set aside the said order on 3‑3‑1982, therefore, the case was remanded to the learned Labour Court to give its findings on merits of the case.

4. Thereafter, the respondent Bank had resisted the petition by submitting that the appellant was employed as a Bank Guard and was served with a notice, dated 7‑3‑1981 of imposition of penalty on account of his negligence and absent from duty resulting in burglary at Wango Deh Jehan Khan Branch. Therefore, as per claim of the respondent Bank, an enquiry was conducted and consequently after adopting proper procedure, the appellant was dismissed from service, hence, his grievance petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

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

6. I have heard Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the respondent Bank, while, nemo was present for the appellant. An application for an adjournment was sent by Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned Advocate for the appellant, but, as the present case was an old case of 1983 and it is being adjourned mainly at the request of the appellant, therefore, the adjournment application is rejected. I have also gone through the record and proceeding of the case. There is an admitted position on record by the appellant himself that on the night of 12th/13th February, 1981, he was absent from duty and during his absence, a theft/burglary was committed, that he .was also served with a notice of imposition of penalty, that he also received notice of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and that his colleague Guard was also examined by the Enquiry Officer. I would observe here that the appellant has miserably failed to establish that any illegality or irregularity was committed during the domestic enquiry. Again, there is an admitted position on record I that the appellant has committed serious contradictions in his pleadings at different stages. From the perusal of the evidence of the appellant another documents on record, it is proved beyond any doubt that the appellant was absent from duty at the time of incident. It is a settled principle that a man may tell lie but the circumstances never tell lie. Therefore, I would hold that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order to be interfered with which is well- reasoned.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, I would maintain the same and dismiss the present appeal. M.Y.H./1177/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.