1988 PLP 744 (PLC(CS))

1967 P L C 3 92 rel. Shamsuddin Khalid for Appellant. Muhammad Humayoon for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th March, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 4‑1‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V 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 were that the appellant claimed to have been permanently employed as a Chowkidar in the respondent establishment and besides his normal duties, also working other duties of manual, in nature, since 1‑5‑1974. The appellant claimed that on 3‑2‑1984, a false and fabricated lengthy charge‑sheet was served upon him mainly involving him in an alleged case of theft of thousands of Litres of High Speed Diesel in connivance with other persons, thus, putting the employer into heavy financial losses. The appellant claimed that though he had submitted a satisfactory reply to the said charge‑sheet, but he was suspended and an enquiry was conducted against him which was neither fair, impartial, proper and lawful resulting only in his dismissal from service, vide order, dated 17‑5‑1984. He, therefore, claimed that being aggrieved he had sent his grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent establishment had resisted the petition on the grounds that the appellant being a Chowkidar, was not a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, to maintain his petition and that the charge of theft was fully established in the enquiry in which he had fully participated and that the appellant had himself confessed his guilt during the said enquiry, therefore, he was rightly missed from service, hence, he 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. Shamsuddin Khalid, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written judgments submitted by Mr. Muhammad Humayoon. At the very outset, I would observe here that during the domestic enquiry, which was fair and impartial as the appellant admittedly had fully participated in it; had admitted and/or confessed his guilt and so keeping in view this fact, he was found guilty of the misconduct entailing his dismissal from service. Therefore, after this admitted position, the appellant was not entitled to challenge either the mode of domestic inquiry or his dismissal from service and or he was also not entitled claim that as some other persons were also involved in the alleged misconduct alongwith others, but, they were exonerated and only he as made a victim of discrimination. It is a settled principle of Law that the award of punishment is the sole prerogative of the employer and in this regard, I am fortified with the authority reported in 1967 P L C at page

392. In view of this admitted factual and legal position, t am of the view that the learned Labour Court was quite right and satisfied in passing the impugned order and so, it must be maintained. However, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment, in support of his well convinced arguments as further relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court, reported 11 1987 SCMR at page 1823, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme court had observed as under:‑ "The plea that the departmental enquiry was defective in terms of the rules is hardly available to the petitioner, for, he had, on being granted second opportunity to show case against the report of the Enquiry Officer, who had found him guilty, admitted his guilt before the Director, Special Investigation Cell who had passed the order of his discharge. In view of petitioner's own admission of guilt to the charges levelled against him, it hardly lies in his mouth to plead that the departmental enquiry held against him in respect of the charges was defective." I would respectfully adopt the same view in the present case and 'could hold that the appellant has no case.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1220/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.