1988 PLP 130 (PLC)

Abdul Majeed for Respondent. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants Messrs Quality Steel Works Ltd. Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 7‑7‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.Il1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the resp9ndent under section 25‑A, 1.8.0.1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent workman of the appellant establishment since 1972 and at the relevant time he was working as a foreman in R. M. C. Department wherein one Zulfiqar was the Manager of the Re‑rolling Mills. It was also claimed by the respondent that during this employment with the appellant establishment he was twice elected as president of the Collective Bargaining Agent Union and many times as its Treasurer, therefore, he was duty bound to safe‑guard the interest of the general workers. As, there was an agreement between the Union and the management regarding some benefits to be given to the workers of all departments of Re‑Rolling Mills and as per its term workers of all other departments, such as Galvanising, Bread Bar etc. were getting the benefits from the stoppage of the work due to technical fault in the Mill, but the said Zulfiqar who was the Manager of Re‑Rolling Mills had refused to give these benefits to R.M.C. Department where the respondent was himself working. Despite the facts that the workers had so many times submitted applications but, the said Zulfiqar had always refused to hear any of their demands. That there was a system in the appellant establishment that the entire production is written in a rough document i.e. Tally sheet which used to be reproduced in the Production Register and after these entries, the management of the establishment used to destroy the said Tally sheet, therefore, the respondent had made an application for supplying of the copy of this Tally sheet and after receiving the same, he submitted a criminal case before the III rd Sind Labour Court for the implementation of the agreement. That, when the appellant management came to know about the criminal case, they were very much annoyed and open threats were given to the respondent by one, Amir Azam working in the Administrative Department as Assistant Manager and the same behaviour was of Zulfiqar. It was alleged by the respondent during the pendency of the criminal case, on 24‑11‑1982, he was issued a charge‑sheet mentioning therein that double duty sheet and Tally sheet were stolen by him. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge‑sheet that he had no concern with the double duty sheet nor he had submitted the same along with his said criminal case, but, as far as the Tally sheet was concerned, he claimed that on his written request, it was supplied to him by the said Zulfiqar therefore, it was annexed along with the criminal complaint and if it was a stolen document, then, the respondent would have never, submitted it before the learned Labour Court. However, as the reply to the charge‑sheet by the respondent was not found satisfactory, therefore a domestic enquiry was ordered which was continued for about six months. It was also claimed by the respondent that during the domestic enquiry the appellant management had totally failed to bring any document or proof for which the respondent was charge‑sheeted and also neither a second show‑cause notice was issued to him or an opportunity of personal hearing was given to him. Thereafter the respondent submitted his grievance petition before the learned‑ Labour Court.

3. The appellant establishment resisted the petition of the respondent on the ground that as it was proved against the respondent that he had stolen a secret document of the establishment therefore, a proper and lawful enquiry was held against him and as a result of that enquiry, he was elderly dismissed from service therefore, the respondent could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re instatement in service with full benefits, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and Mr. A. Majeed the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the Tally Clerk of the appellant establishment had confessed before the said enquiry officer that he had seen at all any person taking away any A paper from the file. It is again an admitted position on record that one Amir Azam, Assistant Personnel Manager of the appellant establishment was an incompetent person to issue charge‑sheet to appoint an enquiry officer against the respondent or even to issue a dismissal order of the respondent. It is also an admitted fact on record that Muhammad Saeed Ahmed was a notified Manager and that he was authorised to issue any charge‑sheet. There is nothing on record to show that either the General Manager or the Managing Director of the appellant establishment had issued any authority in favour of the said Amir Azam, Assistant Personnel Manager to do so and further that this same Amir Azam had also acted as prosecutor, therefore, he was not authorised to take any action against the respondent. It is also an admitted position on record that on account of agitation for the cause of the workers the management was annoyed with the respondent. It is also proved from the record that even the alleged dismissal order was not properly served upon the respondent. From the perusal of the enquiry proceedings on record, it is quite evident that the alleged enquiry officer did not conduct domestic enquiry properly and in accordance with the requirement of Law and, had committed infringement, therefore, any finding on such type of domestic enquiry can not be relied upon. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment has nothing to submit to controvert the above admitted legal and actual aspects of the case. The contention of Mr. Abdul Majeed the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, Akhunzada, that he was victimized only due to his legitimate trade union activities, has some force. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I see nothing wrong with the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court.

6. For the reason stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back E benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits already deposited in this tribunal by the appellant establishment be paid to the respondent,, Akhunzada, after his due verification. M.Y.H./1008/Lb.S Appeal dismissed