2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 29-5-2000 passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi whereby Constitution petition filed on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 20-12-1995 was kept intact.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was serving in BASF Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited since 1971. His services were terminated on the allegation that he got reimbursed an amount of Rs.600 and Rs.500 respectively regarding treatment of his two sons during the period w.e.f. 2-4-1991 to 15-4-1991 and for his own medical treatment during the period w.e.f. 15-4-1991 to 30-4-1991 on the basis of medical charges receipts which were subsequently found forged, fake and fictitious. The petitioner approached the Sindh Labour Court for the rederessal of his grievance but to no avail. He filed an appeal before Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which was rejected on 20-12-1995. As a last resort the petitioner preferred a Constitution petition which was also rejected vide impugned judgment.

3. Heard the petitioner at length who mainly argued that he was victimized due to union activities while no amount was got reimbursed on the basis of forged and fictitious receipts.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated by the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely gone through the order dated 19-5-1994 passed by Sindh Labour Court, decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 20-12-1995 and also examined the impugned judgment. Indeed entire record has been thrashed out. Let us mention here at the outset that the petitioner has been dismissed after fulfilling all essential legal formalities and affording proper opportunity of hearing by the BASF (Pvt.) Limited. As mentioned hereinabove main allegation against the petitioner was that an amount of Rs.600 and Rs.500 was got reimbursed on the basis of two medical charges receipts which were found fictitious, fake and forged. It is worth observing that sufficient evidence has come on record showing that the medical charges receipts on the basis whereof the said amount was got reimbursed were forged and fictitious. It is pertinent to mention here at this juncture that Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi has stated in unambiguous manner before the Labour Court that the two medical charges receipts were neither signed by him nor the petitioner was examined by him as patient as the name of petitioner was not mentioned in the relevant registers of the clinic indicating the details of indoor/outdoor patients. The statement of Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi is also indicative of the fact that Shah Alam, cashier, was never authorized by him to prepare such receipts and moreso, no directions to that effect were, ever given to him by Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi. In such view of the matter it has rightly been held by the Sindh Labour Court and Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal that the two medical charges receipts were fake and forged. It is pertinent to mention here that "findings of fact by Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction can only be interfered when such findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, patent errors of law or abuse of jurisdiction", which are badly lacking in this case and accordingly no interference is called for. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in (1990 SCMR 837 + PLD 1978 Quetta 17 + PLJ 1978 Quetta 72 (DB)). We are not impressed by the story of victimization as narrated by the petitioner which is too absurd to deserve any credit.

5. A careful scrutiny of the record would lead to the conclusion that the findings of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal are neither unjustified nor arbitrary and have rightly been kept intact by learned High Court of Sindh vide impugned judgment which is free from any legal infirmity and hardly calls for any interference.

6. In the light of foregoing discussion and observations we are not inclined to grant leave and resultantly petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-95/S Petition dismissed.