PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD., JHELUM vs BASHIR SAMUEL and others
The petitioner company sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court. The respondent, an employee of the petitioner, was dismissed from service for alleged theft of cigarettes after a domestic inquiry. The core legal question concerned the validity of the employee's dismissal based on disputed findings of fact regarding the recovery of the cigarettes. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and the High Court were correct, noting that the petitioner failed to produce expert evidence to disprove the employee's plausible explanation that he picked up discarded cigarettes from rubbish. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the employee.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by labor courts and the High Court can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the failure to produce expert evidence to substantiate allegations of theft make the employer's case doubtful?
- Is an employee entitled to the benefit of doubt in disciplinary proceedings when the employer fails to conclusively establish misconduct?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby his writ petition was dismissed.
2. ' Bashir Samuel respondent No,1 was an employee as a sweeper in the petitioner's company at Jhelum. On 5-9-1985 during a search six Gold Leaf cigarettes were recovered from his person by one Ahmad Khan in presence of some other workers and he was served with a formal charge- sheet of misconduct. After formal enquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to him. His explanation was not considered and he was dismissed from service on 7-10-1985. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 before the Labour Court. The petitioner resisted the application. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while considering the application of the respondent No,1, vide his judgment, dated 27-9-1987, set aside his dismissal order and reinstated him in his service without back benefits. Both the parties went in appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal against the said judgment. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and that of the respondent No,1 was partly accepted and he was given 50% of back benefits vide judgment, dated 25-11-1987. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, vide his judgment, dated 5-12-1987.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned findings, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner's case is not based on sound footings and was unsuccessful throughout to establish it against the respondent No,1. The point involved in the case is that of fact which the learned Courts below have thoroughly adjudicated upon and arrived at a correct conclusion in favour of the respondent No,1. The learned High Court has also affirmed these findings of fact. Respondent No,1 is an old employee of the petitioner's company working in the capacity of a sweeper. His past record of service does not show any theft incident to have been committed by him. The version of the petitioner is that six intact cigarettes were recovered from the person of the respondent No,1. This fact is admitted by the respondent No,1 but has given the version that he has picked up the cigarettes from the rubbish near the latrine. The petitioner has failed to produce an expert evidence on record to show that the cigarettes in question were intact and not discarded ones. This makes the case of the petitioner doubtful against the respondent No,1.
4. Therefore, we are of the view that the benefit of doubt has rightly been given to him by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for consideration of this Court.
5. ' The result is that this petition has no force and accordingly is dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.