1996 PLP 221 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)(b) & (4)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Fresh enquiry, holding of‑‑‑Labour Court had directed holding of fresh domestic enquiry before passing of order of dismissal of employee who was dismissed on charge of theft‑‑‑Employee having been caught red‑handed on the spot, holding of domestic enquiry had become just a formality‑‑‑Even otherwise enquiry against employee was held twice at his own request, but he absented himself from proceedings and it had to be completed ex parse‑‑‑Person committing theft of property of employer from factory did not deserve to be dealt with leniently‑‑‑Order of Labour Court directing fresh enquiry was set aside and order of dismissal of employee by the employers was confirmed in circumstances. Rehan Aqeel for Appellants. M. Latif Saghar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1995. This is the employer's appeal against the order for labour Court holding a fresh domestic enquiry before passing of an order of dismissal of the worker. The appellant Pharmaceutical Company had employed respondent Aftab Ahmad Siddiqui as Tablet Strip Maker. On 2‑11‑1986 at the S.I.T.E. Factory, a security guard of the Well-come Company, detected respondent Aftab Ahmad Siddiqui moving from the Strip Manufacturing Section to the Workers Locker Room, in a suspicious manner. He was physically searched and 23 strips of Septran Tablets were found concealed inside his socks that he was wearing. The matter was reported to the Factory Manager who ordered a departmental enquiry.

2. Since the respondent was caught red‑handed on the spot the holding of the domestic enquiry became just a formality. The respondent first asked for change of Enquiry Officer and then lie claimed that he required time for cross- examination of the witnesses after getting the copies of the examination‑in‑chief. These have been found to be delaying tactics. Enquiry was therefore completed ex parte and the worker was dismissed. The enquiry was held twice at the request of the worker and yet he absented himself from the proceedings and it had to, be completed ex parte.

3. Mr. Latif Saghar on behalf of the respondent worker has argued that no Enquiry Officer was examined before the Labour Court, therefore, the dismissal should be set aside. Mr. M. Latif Saghar has not shown what prejudice if arty has been caused to the worker by non‑examination of the Enquiry Officer. A person committing theft of the property of the employer from the factory does not deserve to be dealt with leniently. There is hardly any ground for causing further delay by directing fresh domestic enquiry. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the order of dismissal of the respondent by the employers is confirmed. Appeal is allowed accordingly. H.B.T./2527/Lb.S Appeal allowed.