1992 PLP 323 (PLC)

3. It is alleged that on the night between the 10th and 11th July, 1981 there was a theft of some accessories including Steering Wheel with Gear Lever and complete `Dash Board' from a Toyota Car at Wheat Plot of the K.P.T. where they were detailed on duty on that night, the statement of allegations against them was as follows:-- "On 10-7-1981, A.S.I. Rafiq Ahmad was booked in 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. as Incharge `Wheat Plot Cars' with two Watchmen under him on the same plot namely Watchman Muhammad Karim No. 941 and Watchman Muhammad Ramzan No. 1212. They took charge of the Cars stacked at the Wheat Plot from the outgoing Staff of the Watch & Ward who was on duty at this plot in 2 p.m.--10 p.m. shift. On taking over the charge they did not make report of any kind of theft of accessories of Cars nor did they make report of finding doors of any Car opened. The next morning i.e. 11th July, 1981, when the morning shift Watchmen namely Watchman Muhammad Yousuf No. 1405 and Watchman Munawar Din No. 916 reached the said plot on duty they found only A.S.I. Rafiq Ahmad present while his two Watchmen of the night shift had already left without handing over charge to these two incoming Watchmen. The aforesaid morning shift watchmen carried out checking of the plot and found door of one Car opened and a hammer and two spanners lying in the Car. They also found the following articles missing from this Car:-- (i) Steering Wheel with Gear Lever, (ii) Complete `Dash-Board'."

4. After a preliminary enquiry they were served with the charge-sheet on 14-1-1982; to which they had given replies. Not satisfied with their' explanation, an enquiry was duly held against them and on the basis of the report, submitted by the Enquiry Officer, they were removed from service on 21-6-1983.

5. The respondents had filed Departmental appeals under section 23(2) of Karachi Port Trust Act, but, it was rejected by the Board.

6. The respondents had then filed grievance notices before the authorities and later on the grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court, followed it.

7. The appellants in the course of the written reply challenged the maintainability of the grievance petitions. The ground taken by them was that the workmen of the K.P.T. were governed by the Rules and Procedure as envisaged under the Karachi Port Trust Act and the Labour Court in the circumstances had no jurisdiction at all. This was treated as a preliminary objection and the learned Presiding Officer overruled the objection, vide order-dated 2-10-1985.

8. The appellants aggrieved by this order; presented a writ petition in the High Court which came to be allowed. This order in the writ petition was then appealed against in an Infra-Court Appeal before the -Division Bench which was allowed. It was held therein that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

9. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, Rafiq Ahmed appeared on behalf of the applicants/respondents and Shujauddin the Office Superintendent of the K.P.T. was the solitary witness on behalf of the present appellants. The learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the workmen was not warranted under law and allowed the grievance petitions which ended in these appeals.

10. It was contended by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt, learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents had not properly exhausted the remedies under section 23(2) of the Karachi Port Trust Act, inasmuch as they had preferred the appeals against the order of their removal to the Board as A against the Chairman of the Port Trust.

11. Admittedly there had been a long drawn contest between the parties and we have not been told whether this objection was taken before the Labour Court or for the matter of that in the High Court. It is, therefore, rather late in the day to agitate this point at this stage when we do not know even the emoluments of Rafiq Ahmad who was in Assistant Sub-Inspector Watch and Ward. In the case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani reported in 1983 SCMR 769, wherein the appellants were demonstrately a party, there was no appeal under section 23(2) of the Karachi Port Trust Act at all and no exception was taken to that. Nothing will, therefore, turn on this contention.

12. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt also contended that the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 will not be attracted in this case and there is no quarrel with the proposition. All the same it has to be seen whether the respondents have met the requirements of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. This position could not be assailed during the proceedings earlier and no wrong has been found about seeking the remedy from this forum, in the case reported earlier.

13. Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the respondents contended that even under the Rules of the Establishment, the principles of natural justice and fairplay had their own place and the K.P.T. could not remove its employees without any evidence or ground, just on suspicion or whim. If that is done it will be violating the guaranteed rights of their workmen attracting the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It appears from the statement of allegations that the matter was reported to the police, but, there is nothing to show that the respondents had been proceeded against by them or even interrogated. Shujauddin was never associated with the enquiry and had no personal knowledge about the matter, but he is the only witness appearing on behalf of the appellants. In his cross-examination, however, he admits that one of the witnesses, namely, Yousuf, had stated that Ramzan and Rafiq were 13 present after their shift. The Enquiry Officer also has not been produced before the Labour Court. Entry in the daily reports is only a practice and. If Rafiq was present at the time the theft was discovered it was neither here nor there. The enquiry proceedings in the circumstances cannot be said to be scarosanct and the order of dismissal was therefore, based on the flimsies grounds.

14. The order of the learned Labour Court is, therefore, not open to any exception. As a result, I would dismiss the appeals. H.B.T./2001/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.