MESSRS PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD Versus MUHAMMAD HAROON

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, Messrs Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. Karachi against an impugned order, dated 8‑1‑1985 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.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19‑2‑1984, the appellant issued a show‑cause notice to the respondent for an alleged misconduct, namely theft of petroleum. As his reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held against him resulting in his dismissal from service on 17‑5‑1984. Thereafter, the appellant after compliance of the requirements of the law had filed a grievance petition, before the learned Labour Court.

3. The appellant establishment had resisted the petition on the ground that respondent was found guilty of a theft by the enquiry officer in a properly and lawfully held domestic enquiry in which he was given full opportunity to defend himself, therefore, he was given full opportunity to defend himself, therefore he was rightly dismissed from service and so right, guaranteed or secured had accrued to him to maintain his application under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969, 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 had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence, this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The sole point for determination in their appeal is that whether the charge of theft of petrol by the respondent was fully established or not there is only one witness, namely, Sabir Chowkidar who had alleged to have seen only an 18 litres Cane of petrol in the hand of Waheeduddin and the respondent, Muhammad Haroon was standing near the well holding one another Cane of petrol in his hand and nothing else. This witness has further confessed that at the place of alleged theft neither there was any petrol pump/tank near to it nor he had seen by his own eyes that this petrol was being stolen by the respondent. Sabir Chowkidar was also not aware whether the petrol Cane/tin was actually belonged to the appellant establishment or it had identification mark or seal thereon. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the bare word of the Chowkidar Sabir could not be relied upon. The evidence of Chowkidar Sabir is not acceptable in Law as he was not datailed an eye‑witness of any of the occurrence simply seeing petrol at all an eye‑witness of any of the occurrence. Simply seeing petrol Cane/Tin in the hand of the respondent or his co‑worker Waheeduddin does not mean that the petrol was stolen while it was an admitted position that nearby to it there was no petrol pump or tank. Further, the appellant establishment had made attempt to produce one Police Constable Muhammad Afzal to corroborate their story, but, it is strange to observe here that this witness had refused to support the case of theft against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer, Muhammad Iqbal, also had himself admitted that he did not receive any complaint that A if there was any shortage in quantity of oil in the Cane. As the impugned order is thoroughly discussed and well‑reasoned, therefore, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order, so, I would maintain the same.

6. 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. The respondent is directed to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits, forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the appellant establishment in this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent after due verification.

S.Q./1026/Lb.S ??????????

Appeal dismissed.