Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑283 of 1983, decided on 24th July, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A (5) & 38(3)‑‑Scope of S.25‑A‑‑Labour Court to go into all facts to find out if allegations against petitioner stood proved by evidence produced in domestic enquiry‑‑Petitioner dismissed from service on charge of forcibly obtaining signatures of supervisor on overtime claim slip‑‑No witness except supervisor supporting allegation and such supervisor also not making any written report prior to being asked for explanation‑‑Story of obtaining signatures of supervisor appearing to be improbable and un-plausible‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement to petitioner (appellant) without back benefits.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.

Javed Altaf for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19^th July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 24‑4‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he forcibly obtained 1985 Muhammad Arif v. Packages Ltd. 243 (Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal) the signatures of the supervisor on the overtime claim for four days. No witnesses were examined. One is the supervisor whose signatures are alleged to have been forcibly taken and the other witness, P.W.2 was not the eye‑witness. The enquiry was properly held but the learned lower Court has not expressed any opinion whether the evidence produced against the appellant was convincing and believable and proved the' charge. According to subsection (5) of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Labour Courts have to go into all the facts of the case. It is the duty of the Labour Court to find out if the allegation stood proved by the evidence produced at the enquiry. The evidence of P.W.1 who is the only witness of the incident is not believ able. He did not submit written report to the higher authorities till his explanation was called. P.W.1 said that he was afraid of the appellant therefore, did not make written report and had verbally informed his superiors who asked him to give report in writing. In spite of the foci that boss of P.W.1 demanded written report, yet the witness declined. Not only on 13‑1‑1980 but even subsequent to it, accordingly to P.W.1, the appellant had been getting overtime slips signed by him by force. After 13‑1‑1980 the witness was free and could have reported the matter in writing. He could have requested for the presence of security guard with him during working hours. This is not the case of the prosecution that at pistol point the appellant had been getting the signatures of Hamsafeer Ahmad, complainant, on the overtime slips. So, the whole story appears to be a mere concoction. This is unbelievable that only by verbal threats one can get the signatures on the documents which are false. The appellant stated that overtime wages for the disputed period had been duly paid to him. This shows that either the appellant had actually given overtime or Mr. Hamsfeer Ahmad and the appellant collided with each other and shared the overtime wages obtained illegally and when the matter came to the knowledge of the superiors and explanation of Hamsafeer Ahmad was called, which is an admitted fact, the latter in order to save his own skin came forward with this story that the appellant had been getting his signatures forcibly. Whatever the case may be, this is unbelievable that the appellant received signatures forcibly. Moreover, even if there was some coercion its repetition could be warded of by adopting effective measures in future. The learned lower Court has been wrongly impressed by the fact that previous charge was dropped giving benefit of doubt to the appellant. We have to consider the pros acid cons of the case independently. Since the story of obtaining signatures forcibly is improbable and un-plausible, the mere fact put with respect to some previous charges the enquiry was dropped cannot be a ground to say that the present charge was correct. The respondent failed to bring home the charge to the appellant and wrongly dismissed him.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. Back benefits are not awarded to the appellant as only on the ground of finding the allegation as unbelievable, he has been re‑instated.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.