THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES Versus ALLAH WAFHAYO

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 2‑1‑1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as sub‑post Master since 1‑11‑1958 and on 12‑12‑1977 he was transferred from Pirjo Goth the Head Office at Khairpur and again on 13‑9‑1979, he was transferred from Khairpur to Ranipur. According to the respondent, he was served with a charge‑sheet on 25‑3‑1979, for an allegation of embezzlement of, an amount of Rs.3,248.70, while he was posted at Khairpur. As per claim of the respondent, he was awarded punishment of reducing his pay two steps for the period of two years, and recovery of the alleged embezzled amount from him, vide letter, dated 30‑10‑1979. The respondent, after observing the prescribed procedure, filed a grievance petition No.67/1980 before the learned Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, which was allowed vide order, dated 10‑2‑1981 and as per claim of the respondent, this order was not challenged /appealed by the appellants establishments. Further, the case of the respondent was that even after the decision of the learned Labour Court on the alleged allegations the respondent was again charge‑sheeted vide letter, dated 6‑5‑1981 and he was directed to submit his defence before the Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Sukkur‑cum‑enquiry Officer. The case of the respondent was that even after submission of his defence on 25‑7‑1981 no enquiry was conducted but only his statement was recorded on 14‑11‑1981 by the said enquiry officer who had also acted as complainant and put several searching questions to the respondent in order to implicate him in the alleged misconduct. Further, the case of the respondent was that even after these proceedings no further action was taken against the respondent. The respondent submitted that on the third time, again on 26‑1‑1983 the respondent was served with a show‑cause notice and along with reply to this show‑cause notice, the respondent had requested the appellants establishment to supply certain documents. However, on 3‑5‑1983, the respondent was served with letter of punishment whereby he was punished by reducing his pay to the minimum of one step for one year and recovery of the amount of Rs.3,123/13 from his gratuity. The respondent claimed that this was not the only conclusion of proceedings against him, but, again on 14‑5‑1983 an amended order was issued whereby the recovery of the said amount was ordered as Rs.100 per month from his salary. Being aggrieved with all the above illegal, biased, prejudicial and contrary to law actions of the appellant establishments, the respondent had submitted a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 28‑6‑1983.

3. The appellant establishment resisted the petition and submitted that the enquiry officer had given ample opportunity to the respondent to lead his defence but he failed to avail of the same and as he was found guilty for embezzlement of Government money and was liable to be prosecuted in Criminal Court, but as the respondent was an oldman and had long services to his credit a lenient punishment was awarded to him. The appellant establishment further submitted that as the respondent was posted as Post Master of Khairpur City in Grade 9, as such, , he fell within the category of an employer thus, was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Rehman Baloch for the appellant establishments and Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended on behalf of the appellants establishments that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the grievance ,petition. I find no force in this contention. On behalf of the respondent, a reliance is placed on the cases reported in 1980 P L C at page 15 and 1983 P L C at page 572 wherein the cases of the employees of the Post Offices were decided by the A Labour Court which have been maintained by this Tribunal. Therefore, the respondent was quite entitled to maintain his petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

6. As regards the second contention of the appellant establishment that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the present case. It is an admitted position that the respondent was punished for an alleged misconduct vide order, dated 30‑10‑1979 and thereafter his grievance petition was allowed by the Labour Court vide order, dated 10‑2‑1981. It is again admitted position that the respondent was terminated vide memo, dated 30‑10‑1979 on the same allegation, which p was set aside by the learned Labour Court, vide order, dated 10‑2‑1981 and it is a fact on record that the appellant establishment had not challenged this order of the Labour Court in appeal or in other way be000000.fore any superior Court, therefore, the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 10‑2‑1981 had attained finality. It is evident from the record that after this order of the learned Labour Court the respondent was again charge‑sheeted for the same charges and was subsequently punished.

Therefore, this action of the appellant establishments against the respondent is barred by the principle of res judicata. I would also hold it accordingly. I find nothing wrong with the impugned order which is well reasoned. I would therefore, maintain it.

7. 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.

S.Q./1036/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.