DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. SUKKUR Versus MUHAMMAD ALI ANSARI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an order, dated 23‑10‑1985, 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 appointed as a peon in the appellant Corporation on 18‑10‑1978 and then he was promoted as assistant salesman on 1‑11‑1982. On 29‑3‑1983, a letter was issued to the respondent alleging a shortage of Rs.23,676 and thereafter on 10‑4‑1983 a charge‑sheet was issued to the respondent. It was claimed by the respondent that though he had submitted a satisfactory reply to the charge‑sheet on 15‑4‑1983, but received a letter dated 7‑5‑1983 informing him that an enquiry would be held against him on 10‑5‑1983, which was received by him on the very date at 12.00 Noon, i.e. on the same date when the enquiry was to be held. However, the respondent claimed that he appeared before the enquiry officer and despite the fact that no enquiry was held, the services of the respondent were terminated on 11‑6‑1983, thereafter the respondent filed an application under section 25‑A I. R.0.1969, bearing No.59 of 1983, which was subsequently allowed and the respondent was reinstated in service by the appellant and the payment of the back benefits was made subject to the result of the fresh enquiry by the appellant Corporation, thereby the respondent was reinstated. It is alleged by the respondent that in compliance with the above orders of the learned Labour Court, when on 1‑1‑1984, he approached the Inquiry Officer, again a proper, lawful and reasonable enquiry was not held, but certain incriminating questions were asked by the Enquiry Officer from the respondent. Finally, on 31‑3‑1984,the respondent was again removed from the service by the appellant Corporation, thus he filed the present grievance for his reinstatement in service.

3. The appellant Corporation resisted the petition before the learned Labour Court on the ground that proper procedure was adopted in the conduct of the fresh domestic enquiry against the respondent, in which he was found guilty of the misconduct, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service, hence, his petition was liable to be dismissed.

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

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation and the respondent in person and have also very carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that no proper and lawful enquiry was held against the respondent, but only few incriminating and irrelevant questions were asked by the Enquiry Officer from the respondent and neither any prosecution was produced by the appellant Corporation or the respondent was given a chance to cross‑examine such witness; nor any reasonable opportunity was afforded to the respondent to defend himself against the charges. On the other hand, admittedly the Enquiry Officer has given findings on the matters for which the respondent was never charged and was found guilty of the same and in consequence thereof, the respondent was dismissed, from service. Further, there is an admission on behalf of the witness of the appellant corporation before the learned Labour Court that he cannot say whether the Inquiry Officer had examined any witness in presence of the respondent and further that the enquiry was conducted by Accounts Officer who had examined one James G.Das, Establishment Assistant in support of the charge against the respondent, but this statement too, was not produced before the learned Labour Court. Further, the witness of the appellant Corporation, namely, Ashfaque Ahmed Soomro has also not specifically stated about the actual value of the stock which was found to be short or alleged to have been embezzled by the respondent. Therefore, from the evidence on record. I would hold that the appellant Corporation has miserably failed to establish any charge against the respondent, the enquiry held against him was neither proper and lawful, therefore, the removal of the respondent from service by the appellant Corporation basing on the report of the defectively held domestic enquiry was incorrect and liable to be set aside. Further, it is fully established from the record that the respondent has lawfully and genuinely served upon the appellant Corporation his grievance notice within time. I, therefore hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly set aside the dismissal order of the respondent and there is nothing wrong in the impugned order.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would, maintain the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service forth with fifty per cent. (50%) back benefits but, which are ordered to be paid to him.

A.E./967/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.