SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN Versus MUHAMMAD BUKSH BALOCH

DECISION

This appeal filed by the Sind Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, is directed against an order of the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi setting aside the termination order passed by the appellant against the respondent Mohammad Buksh Baloch and directing that he be re‑irritated with full back benefits.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this matter are that the respondent No. 1, Mohammad Buksh Baloch was appointed a9 a Junior Clerk in the S. R. T. C. at Karachi on 1‑7‑1973. The last post he held was as as Accounts Clerk at the Central Depot, Karachi and while in this position, a report dated 15‑6‑1976 was presented against him by Mr. R. James, the Accounts Officer, giving particulars of 29 instances where employees who were either absent or oh leave not sanctioned, have been marked present by the respondent M. B. Baloch in the Attendance Register for the month of May, 1976. Full particulars of` each employee are shown in this report together with his name, number and the relevant dates on which he was absent but yet marked present and paid for the days of actual absence. On 16‑ti‑1976, the District Manager charge‑sheeted the respondent who replied to the charge‑sheet denying the allegations preferred against him and yet in the last para asking for pardon as his action was not deliberate. The usual domestic enquiry was held in which the respondent fully, participated and In which 3 witnesses appeared on behalf of the S. R. T. Q. whereas the respondent examined no defence witness. The inquiry Officer submitted a complete enquiry report on which a second show‑cause notice was issued to the respondent for 29‑1C‑1976 but he appeared before the District Manager on 5.11‑1976, who after having granted him a personal hearing "found him guilty for the charge of misconduct at mentioned in charge‑sheet referred to above". The District Manager terminated the respondent's service with the S. R. T. C., with effect from 5‑11‑1976 and directed that "dues if any should be recovered from his salary/surety on production of a Clearance Certificate." Aggrieved by this order, the respondent after usual grievance notice, on 15‑3‑1977, presented his applica tion under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the IIIrd Sind Labour Court at Karachi which resulted in the impugned order re‑instating him in service and with full back benefits. Hence, the present appeal preferred by the S. R. T. C. against this impugned order,

3. I have heard M. L. Shahani on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Mazhar All on behalf of the respondent. I have also perused and examined the R 8t P of this case as received in this Tribunal from the Court below.

4. I find myself unhappy with the Impugned order of the Court below. The learned Presiding Officer in para. 7 of his order, when referring to the evidence of the complainant, namely, Mr. James the Accounts Officer, states that this witness "nowhere mentioned that the applicant put false attendance of some workers and on the basis of ouch false attendance extra pay ments were made." If one turns to his report one finds that after giving particulars of the 29 instances mentioned above, Mr. James has reported that "the Attendance Clerk has committed these irregularities with mala fide intention to put the S. R. T. C. in loss as the employees mentioned have been paid the salary for the days they actually remained absent: This is very serious." This witness Mr. James in his evidence before the Enquiry Officer produced this report before him so that the respondent who fully participated in this enquiry was of that time given the details of these 29 instances and was made aware of the precise allegations against him. The learned Presiding Officer in this very para. No. 7 of his impugned order has gone on to find fault with and to criticise the conduct of the Enquiry Officer "in adopting a novel procedure in that he without recording the statement of Messrs S. A. Razzaq and Tahoor Ali, directed the applicant to cross‑examine them. Such a procedure cannot be approved." I cannot agree that this procedure is either novel or unworthy of approval. S. A. Razzaq was Office Assistant at the time at the Central Depot, Karachi and T. R. Jafry was working as an Assistant to the respondent, In his defence the respondent has tried to lay the blame on this Jafry and so an opportunity was afforded to him (respondent) by the Enquiry Officer to cross‑examine this witness. It was urged before me by Mr. Shabani in big arguments that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court below has attempted, as it were, to sit in appeal on the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Now this is a course of conduct which the superior Courts of this country have resolutely opposed pointing out that all that the Labour Court can do is to see that the domestic enquiry has been fairly, properly and fully conducted in accordance with law. It was submitted by Mr. Shahani that his clients have not dismissed the respondent but have only terminated his service under Standing Order 12, whereas the Labour Court in this impugned order has whitewashed him completely and has not only to instated him but also with full back benefits.

5. I have also heard Mr. Mazhar Ali on behalf of the respondent. His main contention is that the charge‑sheet is vague In that the 29 names of the 29 absent employees are not given; nor any dates of absence nor any mention of the amounts paid to them. But, as mentioned above, full particulars of these 29 instances were given by the Accounts Officer Mr. James in his original report and this report was produced by him when giving evidence before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, the respondent in the early stages of the domestic enquiry knew all that he may have wanted to know about these 29 instances and yet I find that he has not cross -examined Mr. James at all; nor has he at any time made any complaint of having been prejudiced in his defence by not being furnished with full particulars; nor has he examined any defence witness before the Enquiry Officer. It was urged by Mr. Mazhar Ali that there were 3 cases against the respondent and that it was not clear to him as to which of these 3 oases. he had to meet. But, I find that the charge‑sheet at page 37 of the Lower Court record expressly mentions Case No. 257 and that the District Manager in his final order terminating the services of the respondent appearing at page 7 of the Lower Court record again mentions charge‑sheet No. 257.

In the result, then, I reached the conclusion at the end of the hearing of this appeal in Court today that it should be allowed and that the impugned order should be set aside. I announced a short order to this effect in Court. This judgment contains the reasons for that short order.