1988 PLP 329 (PLC)

This is an appeal filed by the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan, Sukkur, against an impugned order dated 31‑3‑1985, passed by Sind Labour Court No.VII Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent employee of the appellant Corporation and was working as a 'salesman' at the relevant time. It was alleged by the respondent that his services were terminated on false and concocted charge of misconduct and even without issuing a charge‑sheet to him. It was also claimed by the respondent that the punishing authority was not only the same authority also appointed a witness against him before the Enquiry Officer, but the enquiry officer and that the enquiry officer had also displayed the role of a witness. It was further the case of the respondent that though no witness was examined by the enquiry officer, yet he gave his findings with regard to the alleged shortage. Hence, he was removed from the service on findings of illegal, perverse and biased enquiry, held by an interested person. Therefore the respondent claimed that his dismissal from service be set aside and he be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. The appellant corporation resisted the petition of the respondent and submitted that on 22‑9‑1984 a charge‑sheet was served upon him and that a proper domestic enquiry was also held in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. Further, it was the case of the appellant Corporation that, vide application, dated 1‑9‑1984, the respondent himself had admitted to have committed shortage/mis appropriation amounting to an amount of Rs.16,70,775, therefore, he has rightly dismissed from service on establishment of guilty of misconduct.

3. Both the parties filed their respective 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. As regards the back benefits, it was ordered by the learned Labour Court that they be depended upon the result of the fresh enquiry which was to be held by the appellant Corporation within a period of three months from the date of impugned order, hence, this appeal.

4. Nemo was present on behalf of the appellant Corporation though a Notice was issued to them for hearing today. However, I have carefully perused the impugned order as well as the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position on record that except an oral testimony of the appellant Corporation, there is no cogent and reasonable documentary evidence to prove that either a charge‑sheet was served upon the respondent or a proper and lawful enquiry was held against him and or the charge of alleged shortage/ misappropriation was fully established against him. Further, the appellant Corporation had also failed to bring anything on record in rebuttal of the claim of the respondent that the punishing authority was a witness against him and he had also appointed the enquiry officer and that the enquiry officer was also a witness against the respondent. In view of this admitted position and legal aspects of ~ the case, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly set aside the dismissal order of the respondent and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order.

5. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.E. /1062/L Appeal dismissed.