1977 PLP 390 (PLC)

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 15 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Misconduct‑Any act of misconduct directly or indirectly affecting integrity of Management can be inquired into and punished ‑by Management in due course‑Workman charged of theft of property of other workman‑Domestic enquiry held properly‑Contention that theft not being of property of employer did not constitute misconduct, held, not correct‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, could not interfere. Fateh Muhammad for Appellant. Abdul Latif Bhatti, Labour Officer for Respondent. The above two cross appeals have been filed by Nasir Ahmad, workman, hereinafter mentioned as the appellant workman, and the Manage ment of Nafees Cotton Mills, Muzaffargarh, hereinafter mentioned as the respondent‑Management, against the order 5f I44h November 1974 whereby the appellant workman was re‑instated in service of the respondent‑Manage ment after his dismissal on account of misconduct of theft of a pair of shoes belonging to his co‑workers. The appellant workman moved the learned Junior Labour Court for redress on the ground that he was wrongly dismissed. The learned Lower Court after going into the record of the domestic enquiry and the evidence before it made the following observations :‑ "I have looked into the provisions of Standing Order 15 and come to the conclusion that the theft in question even if established would not constitute a misconduct as it was not connected with the employer's business or property. The contention of the respondent that the act of the applicant was subversive of discipline is also not well founded. In order to show an act as such it was absolutely essential to ascertain the intention of the offender." The above observations of the learned lower Court cannot be sustained as it is an inherent right of the Management to maintain discipline among the workers and any act of misconduct directly or indirectly affecting the integrity of the Management can be inquired into and punished ire due course. The misconduct of any degree once proved, it is for the Management alone to pass any punishment according to the charge‑sheet and the Labour Court would not interefere in its quantum. In the present case it is clear from the record that the enquiry was made by the respondent‑Management on proper lines and the appellant workman was found in possession of another man's shoes who worked in the same section. According to the reply to the second show‑cause notice referred to on behalf of the respondent‑Management from its record before me, the appellant workman admitted to have removed a pair of shoes of his co‑worker while denying the intention of theft. The intention of theft was to be ascertained in the domestic enquiry which was properly made by the respondent. A Labour Court is not justified in ascertaining the actual intention of the worker alleged to have committed misconduct which is the sole function of the Management. All that is to be scrutinised by a Labour. Court is to see that a proper enquiry was made against the worker and he was not in any manner prejudiced in has defence. In the present case there is no room for believing that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant workman and for that reason the verdict given against him in the domestic enquiry could not be set aside. Under the circumstances the appeal filed by the respondent‑Management is accepted and that of the appellant workman is dismissed while setting aside the impugned order.