DISTRICT MANAGER, K.T.C. Versus ZAFAR IQBAL

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an order, dated 31‑5‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent driver in the appellant Corporation and on 25‑5‑1983, he was charge‑sheeted to the effect that he had assaulted one Reporter of the Corporation on 21‑5‑1983 while driving Bus No.150. As the reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, an enquiry was ordered resulting in his dismissal from service on the ground that the charge was proved. Thereafter the respondent submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The appellant Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that as the charge of assaulting checker, Abdus Samad, was fully established against the respondent in a properly and lawfully held domestic enquiry, therefore, his services were correctly dismissed hence, he could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

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

5. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation while nemo was present on behalf of the respondent, I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that the impugned order is well reasoned and it need not to be interfered with. I find no force in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation. He had nothing new to add in what was submitted before the learned Labour Court. There is an admitted position that the name of the complainant against the respondent was not mentioned in the charge‑sheet and even the word 'checker' was not used. Further it is not proved from the record neither the name of the enquiry Officer is evident nor he was produced before the learned Labour Court to support the case of the appellant Corporation that an independent enquiry was held against the respondent. Further, there is no independent evidence against the respondent on the record in support of the charge from either the conductor of the bus or even from an outsider although it was mentioned in the charge‑sheet that so many persons had collected at the place of the alleged incident. A From the record it is again proved that the appellant Corporation had miserably failed to produce his witness, namely Islam Ahmad Khan for cross‑examination by the respondent even after lapse of a period of about two years as his affidavit‑in‑evidence was submitted on 28‑8‑1984 but he was unable to appear before the learned Labour Court till 31‑5‑1986. It means that the appellant Corporation has no case. In view of this position, I would hold that the removal of the respondent from service was incorrect and thus, liable to be set aside.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere, with the impugned order and it is maintained accordingly. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in view of the facts on record, I would not allow the respondent back benefits.

A.E./1114/Lb.S Appeal dismissed