1996 PLP 198 (PLC)

M. Latif Saghar for Appellant. Mehmood A. Ghani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1995. This is the workers' appeal arising from decision of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the worker for re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant worker was employed as a welder in the respondent's Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Company. Since it was a foreign Company, very high standards of honesty were expected from the workers. The appellant had been given a welding mask which had been imported by the Company for use of its welders. The appellant was however, found doing the work of welding without any mask. Enquiries were made from him and on the second or third day he produced a local‑made mask of cheap make as a mask that was given to him by the company. Obviously the original imported mask had been misappropriated. The appellant was accordingly charge‑sheeted and enquiry was made against him. He was found guilty of misconduct and he was therefore, dismissed from service. He filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court but that too was dismissed. He has accordingly preferred this appeal.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Latif Saghar for the appellant that the welding mask was a petty instrument of no value and if the same had been 'misplaced by the appellant it should not cost him his job. The question, however, is of moral turpitude and the value of the stolen property is of no consequence in such cases.

4. It has next been argued that no second show‑cause notice was given regarding dismissal of the worker. It has however been held by the Supreme Court in 1988 SCMR 1352 that a second show‑cause notice is not mandatory unless by non‑service of notice prejudice has been caused to the accused. In this case no such prejudice has been pointed out.

5. Lastly it has been argued by Mr. Latif Saghar that misappropriation does not amount to misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15(2) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance. Sub‑Order (3) of this Order enumerates the acts and omission treated as misconduct. Sub‑Order (b) shows theft, fraud or dishonesty, in connection with employer's property to amount to misconduct. Therefore dishonest misappropriation of the welding mask would fall under clause (b) and shall amount to misconduct. Even otherwise the list in sub‑clause (3) of section 15 is held not to be exhaustive. These are only instances or illustrations and on the same analogy there can be other offences falling under the heading of misconduct.

6. There is, therefore, no substance in this appeal and no ground has been shown for interference with the order of the Labour Court. The order is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2510/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.