MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus PRESIDING OFFICER SIND LABOUR COURT NO IV

The petitioner who was serving the respondent No. 3 as driver was accused of short delivery of goods to the respondent No. 4 on 22nd July, 1974. Accordingly he was charge-sheeted by the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted against him. He was found guilty in the inquiry and was dismissed from services on 8th August 1974. He filed an application before the Junior Labour Court praying his re-instatement in service and the Junior Labour Court ordered his re-instatement on the ground that the charge levelled against him by the petitioner had not been proved in the inquiry. An appeal was filed against this order by the petitioner which was allowed by the Vth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, respondent No. 1 on 26th November, 1974. The petitioner has come up in this Constitutional Petition against the last mentioned order.

2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the Junior Labour Court should not like have scrutinized the finding of facts arrived at in the inquiry proceedings an Appellate Court was against law. In this connection he has placed reliance on Imdad Ali v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (P L D 1975 Kar. 288). In this case it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the scope of examining the inquiry proceedings was sufficiently large as subsection (5) of section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, 1969 provided that while adjudicating a case the Court should go into all the facts of the case. The learned counsel's contention that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the charge which existed against the petitioner bad not been substantiated. I am unable to agree with this contention. The scope of interference by the Junior Labour Court is very limited because in Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (1975 S C R M 46) it was held by the Supreme Court that the Labour Court could not go into question whether the workman had committed the offence with which he was charged or not. All what the Labour Court was concerned was to see whether the inquiry bad been conducted in accordance with the relevant law. The question whether the commission of a certain offence with which an aggrieved worker was charged was fully proved or not can only be enquired into by the Inquiry Officer. In this case the only point upon which the Junior Labour Court had allowed the application of the petitioner was that he had not committed theft and the finding of the Inquiry Officer was not tenable on facts. Since he should not have gone into the finding of facts arrived at by the Inquiry Officer his order was rightly set aside by the Labour Court.

3. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.