1987 PLP 325 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑ Grievance petition not presented by employee personally before Labour Court due to his serious illness‑‑Employee produced medical certificate with an application for condonation of delay before Labour Court who rejected same‑‑Tribunal examining doctor who issued medical certificate‑‑Doctor stated that employee was under his treatment and evidence of doctor going unchallenged‑‑Delay condoned and grievance petition was, held, to be in time. S.M. Kohistani for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 13‑12‑1984, passed by the learned Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I. R. O. , 1969.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent workman of the respondent‑establishment since 1‑2‑1968 and 6‑12‑1983, one Mr. Niaz Khan, Production Incharge of the respondents detected loss of 106 cartons of soap‑cakes missing from the stock. This information was passed on to Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Security Officer, who after ascertaining the fact of theft, reported to Mr. Mohsin Kamal, who subsequently directed to lodge a report with the Police. On 27‑1‑1983, the Police reached the factory and detained two persons, namely, Najeeb and Murtaza. On an interrogation of these two persons, Police came to know that three persons were involved in the offence including the appellant, Muhammad Younus. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and it was alleged that the appellant had confessed the guilt before the Police and led the police to the place of theft and pointed out as to how the theft was committed. Then, the appellant was challaned by the Police in the Court of A.C.M. III (West), Karachi, and while, the case was still pending, the respondent‑management took departmental action and had issued a charge‑sheet to the appellant on 21‑1‑1984, which could not be served upon him as he was in Police custody. However, it was sent to him under a registered A/D post, which was also returned undelivered. That, on 4‑2‑1984, when the appellant was released on bail, he reported for duty, but he was not allowed to resume duties and was subjected to a domestic enquiry resulting in the dismissal of the appellant. The appellant challenged the legality of the dismissal order and thereafter he filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court. The respondent‑establishment resisted the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground that it was time‑barred and that neither any illegality nor irregularity was committed and/or the appellant was victimized due to any reason.

3. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined before the Labour Court, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence this appeal.

4. I have heard Mr S.M Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellant. An application for adjournment of the hearing was sent by he learned representative of the respondent‑establishment, which was ejected. None was present on behalf of the respondents. However, statement of Dr. Capt. Muhammad Hussain was recorded by this Tribunal. It was contended by Mr. S.M. Kohistani for the appellant that as the respondent‑management did not like the appellant and was making efforts o get rid of him, therefore, he was involved in a false case of the theft of 106 cartons of soap‑cakes and got arrested by the police and n consequence thereof a challan was submitted by the Police against the appellant before the A.C.M. III (West) Karachi and thus the appellant was in police custody. It was further pleaded by Mr. Kohistani that while the proceedings were pending before the Magistrate, the respondent sent him a charge‑sheet for the sub judice offence and this charge‑sheet was not served upon him and after his release on bail, the appellant was not permitted to resume his duties. Further, it was argued that the domestic enquiry was not in accordance with' the law, as neither the charge‑sheet was served upon the appellant, nor he was allowed to cross‑examine the witnesses of the respondents and nor he was afforded an opportunity to lead defence; therefore, the alleged enquiry was quite illegal and not sustainable. There is no direct evidence connecting the present appellant with theft, no property is secured from him. According to one witness, the property was secured from Najeeb and Sagheer. The evidence against the appellant is only Police presumption that how the theft was committed. Actually no property was secured from the appellant. This clearly established that the appellant was innocent and he was victimized, as the respondent did not like him. I have carefully examined the record and proceedings of the case and the documents. I find that there is nothing on record that there was any eye‑witness of the alleged theft by the appellant or there is any other supporting witness. Thus, there is only a presumption, which clearly gives a benefit of doubt to the appellant against the criminal, charge. As regards the issue of time limitation, Mr. Kohistani has argued that as the appellant was under treatment of a Doctor due to his serious illness, therefore, he could not present the grievance petition before the Labour Court in person as required by law and has submitted that he had produced a Medical Certificate alongwith an application for condonation of delay before the learned Labour Court which was rejected by it. In view to give justice and full opportunity to the aggrieved person, this Tribunal has examined Dr. Capt. Muhammad Hussain who had issued Medical Certificate, Exh. A/W/1/1. The evidence of the Doctor goes unchallenged. He has established the fact that the appellant was under his treatment with effect from 1‑7‑1984 till 29‑7‑1984. Thus, it view of the evidence, I condone the delay and hold the grievance petition was in time. From the facts and circumstances of the case, am of the view that the dismissal of the appellant on the charge o theft was wrong and cannot be maintained.

5. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside impugned order and would allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. M.Y.H 866/Lb Appeal allowed